Posts Tagged 'barack obama'

Court Rules Natural Born Citizenship Required for Presidency

©2012 drkate

Abdul Karim Hassan is a naturalized citizen who wishes to run for the Presidency of the United States. This even though the Constitution says “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Hassan v Scott Gessler,  Colorado SoS

Business Insider reported on September 5, 2012, Abdul Karim Hassan’s series of lawsuits claiming his right to run for the Presidency have been denied in the Second, Third, and now Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  A similar ruling was issued September 28, 2012 for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The significance of these rulings cannot be underestimated as they affirm that the natural born citizen clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution has not been trumped, abrogated, or implicitly repealed by the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment nor the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  These arguments are the same ones used by Obama’s lawyers in fending off the legitimate challenges to Barack Obama’s candidacy and presidency; by the secretaries of state to refute ballot challenges, and by the media, pundits, Congress and the academics to cover up the usurpation of the presidency by Obama/Soetoro.  Of course, the corrupt SCOTUS hears nothing, sees nothing, and says nothing.

Obama and his supporters, the Congressional eligibility deniers, and the media have been soundly defeated and Obama is still ineligible to hold or run for the office he seeks.  What is more interesting is that the legal rulings lend support to the charges of misprision of felony that all members of Congress, and all the secretaries of state face in contributing to the overthrow of the White House.

This article briefly reviews the history of this case and its rulings.

The FEC Filing 

Presidential Candidate Abdul Hassan ruled ineligible as he is not a natural born citizen

Hassan, a Guyana-born naturalized American citizen, filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to run for the presidency.  Astoundingly, the FEC ruled in September 2011 that Hassan could file papers and raise money to run for president of the United States:

But the agency also told the prospective candidate, Abdul Hassan, that his campaign may not receive federal matching funds because he was not born in America. However, the agency’s decision stopped short of addressing the constitutional issue of whether someone born outside the United States can be president.

Importantly, the FEC made clear that it was outside it’s jurisdiction to decide the constitutional merits of Mr. Hassan’s candidacy, saying that vetting was up to the States:

“This does not mean that he can go and say ‘look the FEC has said that I am a candidate, give me money, I’m official,’” said Republican Commissioner Donald McGahn. “That is not what we do here; we don’t certify you as a candidate. That’s what the states do.” (emphasis added)

Democratic FEC Commissioners had ‘trepidation’ in issuing this unanimous opinion because of how it might be perceived.  They attempted to qualify and explain their rationale:

“By saying that it is okay — it does give the impression that we don’t see a problem,” said Democratic Commissioner Steven Walther. “I think that we really need to be cognizant of how this could be misconstrued.”

To address this problem, one of the final sections added to approved opinion states:

“Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Commission expresses no opinion on Mr. Hassan’s potential liability arising out of his proposed activities under any other Federal or State law, including any laws concerning fraudulent misrepresentation. Any such issues are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction.”

“For us this is really all about what we are empowered to decide and what we are not empowered to decide,” said Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. “Nobody is saying that it is fine and nobody is saying it’s okay for this guy to be going out and raising funds.’

Ballot Access Denied in Colorado, New Hampshire

Hassan then proceeded to set up a website and attempted to get on the ballot in New Hampshire and Colorado.  When denied access by both Secretaries of State of each state, he sued.  He has filed five lawsuits which argued that:

… the Constitution’s natural-born-citizen requirement is a vestige of our less noble past, before we decided that discrimination based on national origin is a grievous wrong. (He points in his briefs to Dred Scott v. Sandford.)The lawsuits say the Constitution’s admonition that “[n]o person  except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Hassan’s lawsuits have already been denied in the First and Second U.S. court of appeals. And the Tenth Circuit rounded out the trio on Tuesday when it too shut down Hassan’s case.

Complaint Against the FEC’s Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act

Hassan initiated other lawsuits aimed at the natural born citizen requirement based on these assumptions, and filed against the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act  (26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013) which provides public funding to Presidential nominees of major or minor political parties after the FEC issued an advisory opinion that Hassan did not qualify for any matching funding because he was not a natural born citizen.  Hassan argues that the Presidential Campaign Fund Act is:

(1) unconstitutional and invalid, and (2) the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution1 is irreconcilable with, and has been“trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now this is where it gets interesting.  The FEC as defendant submitted a motion to dismiss the case based on the same premises that have been used to try to defeat challenges to Obama’s eligibility.  That is,

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), or in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (emphasis added)

The FEC also argued that Defendant argued that this Court should deny Plaintiff’s Application because

the Complaint fails to present an Article III case or controversy, and alternatively, because it does not present a substantial constitutional question. (emphasis added)

The government moved to dismiss the case–using the same arguments it has used to dismiss other cases against Obama–(1) failure to present a claim upon which relief can be granted, (2) lack of jurisdiction, (3) failing to present an Article III case or controversy, and (4) failure to present a substantial constitutional question.

The one argument missing from the government’s defense?  STANDING.

American Jurisprudence and Constitutional Legal Thinking

The DC circuit court dismissed Abdul Hassan’s case. The judge’s ruling denying Abdul Hassans suit against the FEC is illustrative for the process the Judge followed in making its conclusions.  As opposed to ducking jurisdiction and ducking its Article III responsibility to hear cases involving constitutional questions, the court determined:

Because subject matter jurisdiction focuses on the court’s power to hear the claim, however, the court must give the plaintiff’s factual allegations closer scrutiny when resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion than would be required for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 67-68 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Thus, to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a claim, the court may consider materials outside the pleadings where necessary to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts. Herbert v. Nat’l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992). (emphasis added)

Regarding FRCP Rule 12 (b), the court determined:

A court need not, however, “accept inferences drawn by plaintiffs if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint. Nor must the court accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” Id. In addition,“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” (emphasis added)

In other words, the Court actually took on the issue, was legally entitled to review additional information, and ruled it did not have to accept inferences or ‘legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations’.  Every one of the Obama challenge cases was thrown out first, on standing, and second, using the measly excuses such as failure to present a case, lack of Article III jurisdiction, or the ‘political question’.

Article II Still Stands

I hope everyone who has been involved in the eligibility movement can appreciate the significance of these rulings for the Constitution, the requirements of the Presidency, and all the work we have accomplished over the last several years.  It is critical to inform your friends who are skeptical of the ‘birthers’ or disappointed in the perceived failure of the 100+ cases challenging Obama that several courts have affirmed the natural born citizen requirement of the presidency–that it still stands, and that we are right and always have been on this issue.

Significantly the FEC believes the States are responsible for the determination of eligibility, just as the Article II Superpac, the Obama Ballot Challenge, the extensive legal work of many scholars, and manymany others have indicated.  The 2009 Continental Congress recommended vetting laws at the state level were required, and the Article II Superpac will continue its efforts after this election and into 2013 to ensure a vetting process is in place at multiple levels, to make sure the usurpation of the White House by an unknown, unvetted foreign national never happens again.

Please donate to the Article II Superpac to ensure its efforts continue through and beyond the 2012 election.  The national security of our Nation is at stake.

Article II Superpac Challenges Commission on Presidential Debates

©2012 drkate

In another bold move, the Article II Superpac challenged the Commission on Presidential Debates to live up to their charter and set forth their criteria for determining whether a presidential candidate is a natural born citizen.  Quietly working behind the scenes to place three full page ads in the Washington Times, and planning more critical advertisements at the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte next week, this is a powerful reminder to the Commission on Presidential Debates that one Barack Hussein Obama should not even be allowed to debate on the national stage, as he is not constitutionally eligible for the job.

Do we expect the CPD to do anything?  No.  But it is one more nail in the coffin where those who are anti-American and anti-Constitution are exposed for the public to really see.  We have seen Congress fail to vet Obama and wipe clean the Congressional Record through the Congressional Research Service; we’ve seen the judiciary time and time again refuse to follow the law, and we’ve seen the media turn into high-pitched desperate shillers for the penultimate failure known as Barack Obama.  Apparently the Supreme Court doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to deal with Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency.

Head on over to the Article II Superpac site…please take the survey/petition and if you can, donate $1 to the effort at the address listed on the site!

The Superpac is not done.  Key media buys will be made in the certain-swing states of Ohio, Florida and Virginia in the fall campaign to inform as many people as possible–including the electors–of the Constitutional crisis facing our Nation in form of Obama.  Send Obama and the wookie packing!!!

Article II Super PAC, Letter to Commission on Presidential Debates, 8-30-2012

RE: Commission on Presidential Debates: 2012 Nonpartisan Selection Criteria

Dear Mr. Fahrenkopf and Mr. McCurry:

As advocates for the Framers’ original intent, establishing in Article II, Section 1 that every President must be a “natural born Citizen,” the Article II Super PAC wishes to extend our sincere thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for the proper priority you place on the faithful observation of this national security provision of the Constitution by citing it in the first of your 2012 Nonpartisan Selection Criteria.

It has come to our attention that CPD may not recognize or apply any specific definition for “natural born Citizen” in the process of qualifying candidates’ satisfaction of Presidential eligibility. If this is in error, we would appreciate any information on how you qualify Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates’ eligibility as natural born Citizens.

We are deeply concerned with the efficacy of our electoral process in general since we learned in recent years that no known state or federal government office, nor any agency or elected official makes any effort to authenticate Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates’ constitutional eligibility prior to their name appearing on the ballot. Instead, we are genuinely alarmed to find that stewardship of this keystone of our national security is deferred to the same biased, unelected and unaccountable political parties which advance their respective nominees. Furthermore, no official examination to substantiate any party’s claims of their candidate’s eligibility is ever conducted or even sought. For example, it is the FBI’s position that they do not presume to contravene the will of voters, so no background checks are conducted on candidates for any office.

As you are aware, a simple majority vote cannot overturn Constitutional requirements.

This utter failure of ballot security and blatant voter disenfranchisement, still unknown to most of the US electorate, represents a profound breach of public trust. Questions raised by the electorate in the 2008 presidential election cycle as to candidates’ true legal identity have exposed a lethal vulnerability in the Constitutional integrity of the Presidential election process. These unanswered questions remain an issue in the ongoing 2012 election cycle and must be addressed immediately.

Citizens pay for elections with their taxes and rely on elected officials, the media, and non-profit entities such as CPD to ensure the integrity of our election process. Voters harbor a very reasonable expectation that the true legal identity of all candidates be authenticated, that candidates are eligible for the office they seek, and that the elections, and the debates which precede and shape them, are incontrovertibly legitimate. In 2008, the media completely failed to meet its obligation in this process and, as we have already stated, our elected officials do not seem willing to accept the responsibility.

CPD performs a key leadership role as organizers of the Presidential debates and has a unique opportunity now to help mend this rift in our social fabric. Consequently, CPD’s working definition of “natural born Citizen” plays a central role in this unprecedented controversy.

Obviously, Presidential debates are, and have always been, an integral part of the election process. Because these iconic events have fallen under the direct control of the CPD since 1988, we urge you to take very seriously the ethical obligation established by your charter, your mission statement, and your candidate selection criteria to assertively act in the public interest to ensure that all Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are constitutionally eligible for office.

Toward that end, please be aware that, at this time, surveys consistently show that at least one-third of American voters either are suspicious of or completely reject representations of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office of President. A considerably smaller number question whether or not Mitt Romney’s parents were US citizens when he was born, partly because his father was born in Mexico. That concern merits equal examination and resolution.

The point is that the issue of presidential constitutional eligibility persistently plagues the electoral process and aggravates the relationship between taxpayers/voters and their representative government.

Supreme Court precedent, recorded in Minor v. Happersett, recognizes a natural born Citizen as one who is “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” This definition is a logical extension of the progressively restrictive citizenship requirements for House Representatives (seven years) and Senators (nine years). It is also the definition most in keeping with the underlying intent of the Framers to avoid, to the greatest possible extent within a free society, the insinuation of any foreign influence on the power vested in the Oval Office.

The idea that “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are equivalent in status completely ignores the fact that the Constitution itself distinguishes between these two citizenship classes in the same paragraph of Article II Section 1 that establishes Presidential eligibility qualifications. It is important to bear in mind that the Constitution has never been amended to eliminate this distinction, and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not address natural born citizenship at all. (For more information, see: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html)

Some suggest that any “anchor baby” is a natural born Citizen, regardless of citizenship status of the child’s parents. However, Article II Super PAC absolutely rejects that any such interpretation could be reconciled with the Framers’ original intent. The Founding Fathers intended that a person who would be President after the founding generation had passed must be born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth. The President must have sole allegiance to the United States and natural born citizen status is the Constitution’s primary tool to secure that objective.

To say that every child born in America is a natural born Citizen is also to say that any foreign citizen whose child was born in the US could be allowed to raise that child abroad as an enemy of the US and return that child to this country in time to meet the Constitution’s 14-year residency requirement for President. By that reasoning, world class terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, born in Las Cruces, NM to Yemeni parents, but raised and trained in the culture of Al Qaida, should have been eligible as a natural born Citizen at some point, assuming only that his tactics had remained law-abiding.

The assertion that mere place of birth or length of residency establishes natural born Citizen status flies in the face of repeated attempts over decades by numerous members of Congress – all failed – to modify the definition of “natural-born Citizen” to that very effect, or to abolish the requirement entirely. However, most recently, non-binding Senate Resolution 511, dated April 30, 2008 and ironically co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, recognizes Sen. John McCain as a natural born Citizen, partly on the basis that he “was born to American citizens” (plural) which would seem to contradict Obama’s claim to eligibility.

Despite his full knowledge of and participation in this controversy, and his avowed credentials as a Constitutional law professor, Barack Obama has never publicly claimed to be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. His eligibility has appropriately remained in question since he admits that he was born with dual citizenship by virtue of the fact that his father’s citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. In addition, various corroborating evidence indicates that Obama may have become a citizen of Indonesia as a youth.

His repeated denials and ridicule for those who question his constitutional eligibility notwithstanding, Mr. Obama’s birthplace remains unknown since the “documentation” offered to authenticate his birthplace has been determined to be an outright forgery by the only duly-elected law enforcement officer in America who has ever conducted an official investigation into the matter, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona. Rather than an official certification, it is believed to be an electronic composite of selected data from his birth records and possibly from other sources. Sheriff Arpaio has pointedly asked Congress to investigate.

In summary, we ask that the CPD clarify its official position on this national security issue and explain how the CPD qualifies Presidential candidates’ constitutional eligibility as natural born Citizens of the United States.

We look forward to the opportunity to share your response with our membership and associated organizations.

Respectfully,
Helen Tansey, Executive Director
Article II Super PAC

Article II Super PAC Letter to Commission on Presidential Debates 8-30-2012

Georgia on My Mind: Full Faith and Credit

©2012 drkate

Obama is going to have to flip more than 30 million votes to cheat his way back into the pResidency.

The stunning victory of the Constitutionalists over Barack Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah in Georgia on January 26 was also a victory for the judicial system and the rule of law.  No doubt the pressure on Georgia officials is significant so it is important to remind them of the support that exists for their courage.

Scofflaw

Defiant Obama–nothing new, of course–blows it by not showing up, but when has he ever showed up even through his lawyers?  He has dismissed all of us as just so much toilet paper, and his attack on the judiciary, the people, and the states will not stop with this positive ruling.

The Obama ballot challenge and the Article II SuperPac have had a considerable impact in beginning the process of outright removal of his name from the ballot and has the additional very important impact of raising awareness and doubt about Obama in the electorate.  Rather demoralizing for the Obots, Congress, and the media to have spent their wad, ‘credibility‘, and resources defending a fake, fraud, liar, and criminal, don’t you agree? They will stay home, not vote, and ‘blame it on Bush’.

Its time now to go on the offense and cripple Obama in the states he needs to “win” the election.  Some 130 electoral college votes are needed in the states of Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Ohio, and New York in order for Obama to give the appearance of  have(ing) a chance of winning the 2012 election.  Given the Georgia ruling, our next step is…get prepared…use the Constitution: (h/t slcraignbc)

U.S. Constitution Article IV Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

JUDGMENTS: EFFECT TO BE GIVEN IN FORUM STATE

In General

Article IV, Sec. 1, has had its principal operation in relation to judgments. Embraced within the relevant discussions are two principal classes of judgments. First, those in which the judgment involved was offered as a basis of proceedings for its own enforcement outside the State where rendered, as for example, when an action for debt is brought in the courts of State B on a judgment for money damages rendered in State A; second, those in which the judgment involved was offered, in conformance with the principle of res judicata, in defense in a new or collateral proceeding growing out of the same facts as the original suit, as for example, when a decree of divorce granted in State A is offered as barring a suit for divorce by the other party to the marriage in the courts of State B.

The English courts and the different state courts in the United States, while recognizing “foreign judgments in personam” which were reducible to money terms as affording a basis for actions in debt, originally accorded them generally only the status of prima facie evidence in support thereof, so that the merits of the original controversy could always be opened. When offered in defense, on the other hand, “foreign judgments in personam” were regarded as conclusive upon everybody on the theory that, as stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “it is a proceeding in rem, to which all the world are parties.”

The Obama ballot challenge must move now to these states as a new State Challenge Campaign, and those readers here in those states I would hope would immediately contact the Obama Ballot Challenge and the Article II SuperPac to initiate proceedings:

A State District Court filing of a Show Cause Order asking why the State of (x) should not honor the State of Georgia’s determination under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, addressed to the State Gov., Atty Gen., SoS , and State Election Commission/Board/Agency as Respondents is a logical next step. (h/t slcraignbc).

Already ballot challenges in Illinois and Alabama are underway, for  30 more electoral votes.  If we raise enough awareness and enough challenges to make our state officials pay attention, Obama is going to have to flip more than 30 million votes to win the election.

The knowing liar

And don’t forget Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse and the report due out in February.  The justice department and individuals have threatened the Sheriff with removal and death, and are finally being held accountable.  I doubt that Arizona will have an easy time of putting him back on the ballot, notwithstanding Governor Brewer’s lack of courage and membership in the usurper’s’ ‘council of governors‘.

We will not forget that everything Obama has signed as an illegal occupant of the White House has no effect in law.  Think of the tens of thousands of people, including our soldiers, that have died under this illegality.

Section 2 of Article 4 states, in part:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

How correct it would be to have the charges against Obama in any state lead to the arrest and detainment of Obama?  Would it stop his endless campaigning?

No Enthusiasm for the Usurper

Obama has already lost the youth vote to Ron Paul.  There is no enthusiasm for the Obutt or Moose-hell anymore.  Oh, and they’ll have to arrest the OWS people first before they declare martial law, as the Patriots will be at home keeping our power dry.  And there is nothing more ugly than the left scorned.  We told you Obots, you’re the first ones to be detained under martial law.

Get out of Our White House

Zero Degrees of Separation

©2012 drkate

The Oscar-winning film, Babel, is based on the concept of Six Degrees of Separation. The lives of all of the characters were intimately intertwined, although they did not know each other and lived thousands of miles from each other.

As we discussed in Birds of a Feather, there is no difference between Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, and Obama.

And we should all know by now that there is absolutely no difference between Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum and Barack Obama.  Nada, zilch, zero degrees of separation.   They are all bildgerbergers, globalists, and big government types, and have never upheld their oath to protect and defend the constitution. We all know that Obama is not even eligible for the position, having criminally defrauded the entire Nation in 2008.  They are politicians who by definition are liars intent upon seizing control, power and money to further their own and the globalist’s agenda.

 
The American Spectator actually had the courage to publish an article describing Mitt Romney as the least electable of the candidates

Who is going to take seriously a Wall Street millionaire calling for tax cuts for millionaires? That is why he personally is not a good vessel for carrying the Republican standard this year. He is actually a perfect caricature for the neo-Marxist class warfare arguments of Obama and the Occupy Wall Street rabble. That is one reason why Romney, in fact, is the least electable.

~snip~

On monetary policy, Romney again thinks like an establishment, country club, Republican businessman.

~snip~

With Mitt Romney as the nominee, the Republican Washington Establishment will be back in charge, and the Reagan Revolution will be long forgotten history. That was the meaning of the endorsement of Romney by John McCain, embraced by Romney with such relish.

If you can find a difference, let me know:

  • What is the difference between Michelle and Barack Obama and a racist?
  • What is the difference between republicans and democrats? 
  • What’s the difference between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum?
  • What’s the difference between JB Williams and Barack Obama?

Time for a real revolution!


April 2014
M T W T F S S
« Mar    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

PROTECT OUR LIBERTY HERE!

Get Your Copy at drkatesview@gmail.com

Blog Archive

Just follow copyright law and nobody gets hurt!

The contents of this blog are protected under U.S. Copyright Law, United States Code, Title 17. Requests for use of active and archived articles in this blog must be presented in writing in the comment section, and proper attribution is expected. Thank you in advance.

drkatesview thanks you!

Donate to DrKatesView!

Donate Now!

Since 8/15/09

  • 1,644,084 views

Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS Big Government

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Atlas Shrugs

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS American Spectator

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Button 1 120 by 90
Site Build It!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 605 other followers