Plaintiff admits Obama residency challenge is moot; Now takes on Cruz, Jindal and Rubio

Screen Shot 2015-02-04 at 1.09.31 PM

We haven’t talked about this in a while here, and probably with good reason. Once I saw the birth certificate and newspaper clipping showing our current president was born in a hospital in Hawaii it seemed pretty clear to me that Barack Obama was qualified at birth to run for president once he turned 35.

But others who continue to fight this battle want clarity on what it means to be a “natural born citizen.” Tracy A. Fair is one of those, and in a press release which follows this post she makes the case that the Supreme Court needs to define it. She’s using that question to challenge the presidential candidacies of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Some years ago there was talk of revisiting the whole requirement about being born here to qualify as president. This was when some people were seriously talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger as a presidential candidate.

What do you think? Is this requirement outdated? Should there be other requirements in place instead?

PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY OF TED CRUZ, MARCO RUBIO AND BOBBY JINDAL CHALLENGED AT SUPREME COURT

Washington D.C. (MMD Newswire) February 4, 2015 — The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal. In particular, Mrs. Fair argued that unresolved is whether or not these three are in fact “natural born Citizens”.

Mrs. Fair said: “Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents who were not United States citizens at the time of their respective births. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen. Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a ‘citizen’ of the United States at birth. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Ted Cruz by statute.”

As most all know, under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution: “No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Mrs. Fair continued: “That phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. So are they “natural born Citizens” eligible to be President? I think the People deserve to know the answer to that question before the next Presidential Campaign starts in earnest.”

Mrs. Fair, who has shepherded her case through the complexities of the legal system by herself to the Supreme Court concluded: “My efforts were never about Mr. Obama as a person or a politician. Instead, my efforts were about insuring that the Constitution was respected and enforced by those charged with those duties. Where a phrase in the Constitution – such as ‘natural born Citizen’ – is undefined, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret such a phrase. As the Supreme Court itself said in the 1922 case of Fairchild v. Hughes, I have: ‘the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.’ By repeatedly refusing to ‘say what the law is’ regarding ‘natural born Citizen’, the Supreme Court would abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of their whim and caprice to whatever political ends that super-legislature may possess.”

Both a copy of the Petition and the Supreme Court Docket for Case No,: 14-933 are online.

14 thoughts on “Plaintiff admits Obama residency challenge is moot; Now takes on Cruz, Jindal and Rubio

  1. EVERY child born on US soil—and Jindal, Rubio, and yes, Obama, were all born on US soil—-is a Natural Born Citizen simply due to the place of birth. US citizen parents are NOT required.

    Moreover, his view was not alone:

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “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.]

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

    1. So Ellen, do you have any evidence that proves your claims as to the definition of natural born citizen? How about a law, statute, SCOTUS precedent, instead of someone’s opinion.

      You posted this, can you explain what it means: “within the jurisdiction of a national government”

      FYI, we do not follow English Common Law, we follow the Constitution and our own laws. Did you forget that we broke away from England?

      My evidence proves my claims, you have no evidence!

      1. That is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case. Here are its words:

        “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

        III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

        The above says clearly that the term comes from the common law (“by the laws of England for the last 300 years”). And it says that the same rule was in effect in the colonies and in the early states and UNDER the constitution. THAT is a ruling—and it is evidence.

        Don’t believe that the US Supreme Court did rule that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen—despite the words above—well, there have been ten, repeat, TEN rulings, all of which quote the Wong Kim Ark ruling and all of which say that it ruled that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies.

        Here are SOME of them:

        Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

        Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

        Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

        Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

        Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

        Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

        Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

        And, on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down two birther appeals of the last of the Georgia ruling, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

        In short. I have EVIDENCE.

        1. Sorry, but Justice Gray only pronounce Wong a citizen, not a natural born citizen! That is where you are wrong!

          Minor v. Happersett and Elk v. Wilkins are the cases that deal with natural born citizenship!

        2. LOL, the law of England??? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

          “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”.

          It says we “dissolved the political bands” and “assumed natural law” and that is where the Founders got the definition of Natural Born Citizen as shown below:

          Vattel’s Law of Nations §212. Citizens and natives:
          “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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
          http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

          1. The Declaration of Independence also says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

            That, duh, does not mean that the US-born children of two citizen parents are superior to the US-born children of one citizen parent or even to the US-born children of NO citizen parents. The rule is that, unless there is actual evidence that the law was written to make one group superior to another, they have to be treated as EQUAL.

            Hence the category Natural Born Citizen includes both the US-born children of citizens and the US-born children of foreigners—-and it excludes ONLY naturalized citizens.

            Now, as for us not using British law. Of course we don’t—except when their provisions are actually written into US law and the US Constitution—-such as the provisions for no “ex post facto laws” and the use of the common law term Habeas Corpus. But the Supreme Court has ruled that we use the meaning of the common law as GUIDANCE to our legal interpretations. And that is what it did in the Wong Kim Ark case.

            And, if you don’t like it—well, you have the right to keep on appealing and hope that the US Supreme Court will eventually take your case, or you could ask your legislators to amend the Constitution to make it the way that you want it—and not the way that the US Supreme Court has ruled that it IS—-but don’t hold your breath.

            In any case, ten or 11 appeals court rulings have ALL said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and NO rulings (not even Minor v. Happersett) have ever ruled that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. In short, the Heritage Foundation book on the US Constitution is right:

            “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.]

            ……and you are wrong.

    2. Ellen’s learnediscussion of the meaning of the phrase ” Natural Born Citizen ” omits — regardless of her motive, which is unknown to me at this point — the one and only indication of its C-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l meaning which we do actually possess from the ultimate authority, the final arbiter and interpreter of the document, that is, SCOTUS.

      Of course, I am referring to the dictum in Minor v Happersett, written by the CJ for a unanimous Court, which tells us that at the time of the adoption of COTUS the Founding Fathers’ understanding of the meaning would have been, following Vattel and all the rest, birth on native soil { jus solis } AS WELL AS birth to citizen parents { plural } { jus sanguinis }.

      In E’s simplistic reduction there is no Constitutional difference between Natural Born citizenship and any other definition or gradation of citizenship. But why, then, did the beloved Founders — those careful drafters — indeed distinguish between the quality of citizenship required of POTUS and the quality of citizenship required elsewhere in the document ?

    1. Dream on. Obama’s birth in Hawaii has been proved OVERWHELMINGLY.

      Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

      Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a friend of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

      http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

      Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:

      http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

      Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:

      http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

      (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

      Here is the Index Data file:

      http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

      Moreover, birther sites have not even shown that Obama’s mother had a PASSPORT in 1961, and it would have been rare for her to have one since so few 18-year-olds did in that year.

      And EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 (and she would have had to have traveled late in pregnancy since she was attending college for most of the year) because of the risk of stillbirths.

      Yet birthers hope to convince a few GULLIBLE people to assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport and one of the EXTREMELY few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged AND the officials of BOTH parties are lying about it AND so is the Index Data AND so are the birth notices AND so is the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley. Fortunately there are only a few people gullible enough to believe that kind of crap.

        1. Re: “proven a forgery…”

          The constant repetition of that fantasy is the reason that Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review have all called birthers CRAZY. (Other Republicans, like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Huckabee and Gingrich and Santorum have all simply said that they do not believe the birther story.)

          NATURALLY birthers—who hate Obama—keep insisting that his birth certificate is forged. But it isn’t, and the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is overwhelming. See below

  2. Moreover, for Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

    (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

    (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

    (3) She or relatives would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country (in other words to make them LIE), and also somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

    And see the many confirmations of Obama’s birth certificate and the 1961 birth notices (which, BTW, could ONLY have been sent by the DOH of Hawaii. That section of the newspapers, the “Health Bureau Statistics” section, only took birth notices from the Health Bureau, the DOH, and at the time the DOH only send out notices for children who were BORN IN HAWAII).

    To repeat, the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is OVERWHELMING—-which is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review have all called birthers CRAZY. (Mitt Romney, John McCain, Paul Ryan and Gingrich and Santorum and Huckabee have all simply said that they do not believe the birther myth.)

    1. All irrelevant. Obama is not a natural born citizen according to natural law and is therefore ineligible! Anything with his name on it, including SCOTUS appointments are NULL & VOID!

      1. Obama is a Natural Born Citizen—which is a LEGAL term that comes from the common law—and it means citizenship due to the place of birth (as opposed to naturalized citizenship), and every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen.

        “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.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Is water a solid or a liquid at room temperature?