2012-04-22

birthers replaced by fullblooders #obama


4.22: news.pol/obama/birthers replaced by fullblooders
summary:
. a New Jersey court case tried to have
Obama removed from the ballot
based on testimony that his posted birth certificate was altered;
but the judge simply ignored the testimony,
agreeing not to admit the birth certificate as evidence
and then assuming Obama was born in Hawaii anyway .

. snopes is a site that specializes in verifying rumours;
and, along with showing his long-form certificate,
and some official hawaii.gov confirmation,
they also dispute the evidence given by
those who dispute of the certificate's authenticity .

. but, the certificate's authenticity is moot;
because, the litigant's main argument was that
irregardless of being born in the united states,
there exists a constitutional amendment
that narrowly defines "(natural born citizen),
and requires the president to have both parents be citizens;
whereas, Obama's father was a national African .
. the judge simply scoffed at such interpretations,
and the litigant's only legal recourse is to appeal .

. some anti-Obama sites pointed out that
Obama's own lawyers agreed there was no evidence
that obama was born in this country;
in fact, what they agreed to was only that
there was absolutely no evidence
before the court
as to who Obama is or where he was born ...
because they absolutely were not compelled to
provide the court with any such evidence .

 
twitter.com#WorldTruthorg (9hours ago):
"( Obama officially ineligible http://shar.es/r9eTT )
[ shar.es/r9eTT leads to examiner.com ]

Obama officially ineligible?

Jeffrey Phelps of the Denver Conspiracy Examiner
declares "(Obama officially ineligible )
and gives as evidence:
"( a landmark statement has been made
by the Obama administration )
(links to therightperspective.org)
[that's a reference to this:
Upon [litigant's] request, Obama’s lawyer agreed
that there was absolutely no evidence before the court
as to who Obama is or where he was born ...
]
"(a NJ ballot Obama access eligibility case
spawned by Tea Party activists)
(links to teapartytribune.com)
"(The Judge agreed) [posted certificate
does not need to be entered as evidence]
(links to conservativenewsandviews.com)
thedailypen.blogspot.com "(released a story)
(the short and long form at whitehouse.gov).

a NJ ballot Obama access eligibility case
Wong Kim Ark case is not applicable to
natural born constitutional requirement .
The 14th Amendment adopted into the Constitution in 1858
refers to jus soli  "(of the soil),
place / location of birth applies to just a citizen
Article II Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution
states Natural Born jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood)
and applies to the President and Vice President.
. [eligibility] is determined by the citizenship of the parents
and on the soil of that same citizenship, all natural born.
[. then it links to puzo1.blogspot.com,
whose latest entry is "(, April 10, 2012
Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey
Obama Ballot Access Objection )
.]

New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection:
. Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran
had their [Barack Obama primary ballot] objection
heard by Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge,
Jeff S. Masin; 
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.  [the author of this blog post]
represented the Objectors.
Alexandra Hill of the firm of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi
represented [the Obama relection effort].

Objectors argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution
has to be a “natural born Citizen”
which includes presenting evidence of
who he is, where he was born,
and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents.

The main issue that Judge Masin addressed
was whether the definition of
an Article II “natural born Citizen”
includes the requirement that
the child be born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Judge Masin relied heavily upon the fact that
no court in the nation has yet ruled
that [a president of the usa] had to have
two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth.

Objectors explained that most cases regarding Mr. Obama
have been ruled in his favor on procedural grounds
rather than on the merits of
the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”
. the judge relied heavily upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
and its use of the English common law
to define U.S. citizenship.
Objectors explained how Wong did not hold that
Wong was a “natural born Citizen,”
but only a “citizen of the United States”
under the Fourteenth Amendment
which does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Objectors explained that Wong distinguished
between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,”
explaining how Justice Gray used Horace Binney’s
distinction between both classes of citizens.
Objectors argued that the Founders and Framers
did not adopt the English common law to define the term,
but rather natural law and the law of nations
which under Article III became
part of the “Laws of the United States.”
Objectors explained that the definition of a
“natural born Citizen”
comes from natural law and the law of nations
as commented upon by Emer de Vattel in Section 212
of The Law of Nations (1758),
which definition was recognized as American “common-law”
in Minor v. Happersett (1875).
Objectors also explained that Wong Kim Ark
confirmed Minor’s definition
(a child born in a country to citizen parents)
and did not change it.
Objectors explained that Congress
through the Naturalization Acts of
1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855
abrogated the English common law
as the law to define U.S. citizenship
and that through those acts
it told us that a child born to alien parents
was an alien
and not a “citizen of the United States.”
[. it should be pointed out here,
that while Obama's father was an alien,
Obama spent the vast majority of his upbringing
only with the parent that was a citizen;
therefore, Obama's parenting is consistent with
the spirit of the jus sanguinis aspect
of “natural born Citizen” .]
Objectors went through the historical evidence,
including but not limited to
Emer de Vattel and St. George Tucker,
which shows that the Founders and Framers
defined a “natural born Citizen”
as a child born in the country to citizen parents
and not as the English common law defined a
“natural born subject.”
Objectors explained how Madison wrote to Washington
that at the constitutional convention,
the delegates did not adopt the English common law
for the new republic.
Objectors explained that there is a constitutional distinction
between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,”
and that the two terms cannot be conflated and confounded
as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
--[ "( No person except a natural-born citizen,
or a [founding] citizen of the United States,
... shall be eligible to the office of President; )
]--
and Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison,
who told us that each clause of the Constitution
must be given its own meaning.

Judge Masin [the ALJ] also reserved decision
on the question of whether a “natural born Citizen”
must be born to two U.S. citizen parents.
“ 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” .

But on the contrary, from the quoted language,
we can conclude that the ALJ found that
Obama was born in Hawaii
and therefore based on that fact alone
and with no reference to the citizenship of his parents,
found that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

But the ALJ made the finding
that Obama was born in Hawaii
without providing any explanation as to
what evidence he relied upon to make such a finding.

Also, the ALJ relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
to rule that Obama, born to an alien father,
is a “natural born Citizen” .

The next step is an appeal directly to the
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.