Supreme Court Won’t Hear ‘Birther’ Appeal, Obama May Be American After All
Latest update: December 12th, 2012
print
tell a friend
President Obama at his desk, secure in his status as "natural born citizen."
Photo Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
Believe it or not, the birther effort to de-legitimize the Barack Obama presidency may be officially over, just in time for a possible Democratic defeat in November.
AP is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to Obama’s U.S. citizenship and, consequently, to his eligibility to be the country’s commander in chief.
The court on Monday rejected without comment an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the challengers did not have legal standing to file a lawsuit based on their allegation.
As the U.S. Constitution states that “a natural born citizen” is the only person eligible to serve as president, the court’s choice on Monday may mean that in the justices’ minds being born to one U.S. citizen is sufficient to comply with the constitutional requirement – regardless of an individual’s place of birth.
Candidate Obama’s Republican opponent in 2008, Senator John McCain, was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
This might explain why the court would not entertain the challengers’ allegations that Obama, whose father was Kenyan, was born in Kenya, rather than in Hawaii. Regardless of whether or not their claim that his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery, if having an American parent suffices to make one “a natural born citizen,” then the certificate is immaterial.
Of course, now the birthers will have to provide DNA evidence suggesting Obama was born to a Kenyan mother, too.
Republicans who gave a hoot back in 2008 will recall that Keyes and Drake ran against Obama on the American Independent Party ticket, and Robinson serves to this day as the party’s chairman.
And back in 2004, in the Illinois U.S. Senate Election, Obama beat Keyes 70-27.
Ouch.
tell a friendAbout the Author: JewishPress.com Senior Internet Editor Yori Yanover has been a working journalist since age 17, before he enlisted and worked for Ba'Machane Nachal. Since then he has worked for Israel Shelanu, the US supplement of Yedioth, JCN18.com, USAJewish.com, Lubavitch News Service, Arutz 7 (as DJ on the high seas), and the Grand Street News. He has published two fun books: The Cabalist's Daughter: A Novel of Practical Messianic Redemption, and How Would God REALLY Vote.
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
4 Responses to “Supreme Court Won’t Hear ‘Birther’ Appeal, Obama May Be American After All”
1
Loading ...
Maybe we need to exercise our rights to bear armaments and march into the “court” to remind these ass-hat politicians who it is that keeps them employed in the first place… and if they don’t like it, they are fired….
“We the People” are sick if their bull shit….
I’m not sure I understand your problem. Are you against the Supreme Court’s right to interpret the constitution? Would you like to use your “bear armaments” thing to define the constitution? How long do you think that kind of an approach can last before someone kills you?
Just wondering.
LOLOL, WOW…how can people even write articles when they have no clue at all what they are talking about? You are WAY behind and have a lot of research to do, probably about a years worth. You better get started, let me help:
LEARN THE FACTS (all sourced with govt docs):
Obama literary agent claims Obama was Kenyan-born ~ Now DOZENS more articles confirm the same!
2012 Vetting Obama: 100% proof Obama is a USURPER ~ 100% sourced w/govt documents.
2012 Vetting Obama ~ Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American.
2012 Vetting Obama NEW EVIDENCE on Obama's Birth Place ~ Is this the REAL Certificate?
2012 Vetting Obama: BARRY SOETORO ILLEGAL PRESIDENT ~100% SOURCED W/ GOVT DOCUMENTS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTnJDuVNifQ
1862 Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639):
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 failed to pass in the Senate until Lyman Trumbull proposed an amendment to the bill adding the words "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
The bill then went to the House where Representative John Bingham (author of the "future" 14th amendment), confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, in regards to Trumbull's amendment to the bill:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
The 14th amendment was introduced to render the Civil Rights act constitutional and amend it to the Constitution. It passed in the House, but failed in the Senate until Senator Jacob Howard's amendment to the bill (the citizenship clause) was introduced. In 1866 while while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had just recently passed and again states:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
Everyone seems to forget the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which is why the law/amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and see the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!
What exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause amendment to the bill, so I think he knew what HE meant::
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
So this proves that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same exact thing as "not subject to any foreign power"
Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16
1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writerson that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. 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."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
ORIG: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=632&itemLink=D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_dtRA::%230030633&linkText=1
Supreme Court Minor V. Happerset:
"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."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=632&itemLink=D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_7RJR::%230030633&linkText=1
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter".
http://books.google.com/books?id=z0oWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=%22I+thank+you+for+the+hints+contained+in+your+letter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yDs0T82yEOLm0QHclt2zAg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22I%20thank%20you%20for%20the%20hints%20contained%20in%20your%20letter%22&f=false
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts.
Madison's notes of the Convention.
http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt
What’s the point of shpritzing all this stuff? Just tell me what you think was the meaning of the Supreme Court refusal to hear Keyes.
If one parent being a US citizen is enough, then he's eligible. But I wonder whether we want a president who lies and spends almost a million dollars (of his own money) trying to cover up his lies.
How Could It Not Matter If The Certificate Is A Forge? That Is Against The Law And Illegal. If His Camp Knowingly Forged A Legal Document, That Alone Should Keep Obama from Being Commander And Chief!