Main Menu

Birther judge triggers constitutional crisis

Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, former WorldNetDaily writer and birther Roy Moore (looking gay after his election to the court) has triggered a constitutional crisis in Alabama after ordering judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of a federal judge’s ruling, that the U. S. Supreme Court declined to review. Probate Judge Al Booth in Autauga County said:

“I have the man who runs this state’s court system telling me not to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples,” Booth said. “I have the federal judiciary telling me I will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“I want to uphold my oath. But what law do I follow?” he said. “Which constitution do I uphold?”

The head of Alabama’s Republican took the federal order to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples pretty hard:

The State of Alabama and the United States of America will reap God’s wrath if we embrace and condone things that are abhorrent to God, such as redefining marriage as anything other than a union between one man and one woman.

Read more at USA Today.

[Moore still “birthin'” in 2017]

,

408 Responses to Birther judge triggers constitutional crisis

  1. avatar
    y_p_w February 9, 2015 at 3:00 pm #

    Roy Moore is in the news again.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/09/alabama-chief-justice-orders-ban-same-sex-marraiges/23107997/

    He’s claiming that a federal court ruling that was denied review before SCOTUS isn’t binding on the state.

  2. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 9, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

    y_p_w:
    Roy Moore is in the news again.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/09/alabama-chief-justice-orders-ban-same-sex-marraiges/23107997/

    He’s claiming that a federal court ruling that was denied review before SCOTUS isn’t binding on the state.

    Oh goodie! We get to watch his career meltdown a second time!

  3. avatar
    Rickey February 12, 2015 at 6:17 pm #

    y_p_w:
    Roy Moore is in the news again.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/09/alabama-chief-justice-orders-ban-same-sex-marraiges/23107997/

    He’s claiming that a federal court ruling that was denied review before SCOTUS isn’t binding on the state.

    Today U.S. District Judge Callie Granade ordered Mobile County Probate Court Judge Don Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and Davis is complying.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/alabama-gay-marriage_n_6670838.html

  4. avatar
    donna February 12, 2015 at 7:10 pm #

    Judge Granade was recommended to the federal bench by BOTH AL senators and appointed by G. W. Bush

    Chris Cuomo Eviscerates Roy Moore On Live TV: ‘Our Laws Do Not Come From God And You Know That’

    According to Moore, Alabama’s gay marriage ban provided equal protection because LGBT people had a right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else.

    “Our rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God,” Moore opined.

    “Our laws do not come from God, and you know that,” the CNN host said. “They come from man… Our rights do not come from God. That’s your faith, that’s my faith. But that’s not our country. Our laws come from the collective agreement and compromise.”

    “You’re citing that marriage is about a divine institution,” Cuomo continued. “You’re putting God before the laws of man. You’re making it about that. And it’s about your ideas of your faith about what marriage is.”

    “When you take the rules of your religion and you put them on everybody else, that is not what we do in this country. Your definition of marriage is based on your faith, you’ve said it a hundred times, that it is derived from God. That is not how it works here, and you know that. Equal protection applies to all by compromise. And you would even need to have a rational basis for why it would need to be only between a man and a woman, and all you can say is, ‘Because God said so. It’s always been that way.’ That’s not enough.”

    http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/chris-cuomo-eviscerates-roy-moore-live-tv

  5. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2015 at 7:18 pm #

    I can’t wait to see the smiting Moore gets. Lets hope his removal from the bench is permanent this time.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 12, 2015 at 7:23 pm #

    Didn’t Alabama just pass that anti-sharia law talking about how no judge can base their decisions on foreign law. Yet that’s what they just did?

  7. avatar
    john February 12, 2015 at 9:48 pm #

    The issue of Gay Marriage nation wide is before SCOTUS. it is best for Judge Roy Moore not to issue license until SCOTUS rules. Way to go Roy!

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2015 at 10:04 pm #

    The Alabama order was appealed to the Supreme Court, and they declined to hear it.

    john: The issue of Gay Marriage nation wide is before SCOTUS. it is best for Judge Roy Moore not to issue license until SCOTUS rules. Way to go Roy!

  9. avatar
    john February 12, 2015 at 10:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Alabama order was appealed to the Supreme Court, and they declined to hear it.

    The Alabama case was declined but another case on Gay Marriage in before the SCOTUS. SCOTUS is expected to make a ruling this summer on whether it is legal nation wide. If SCOTUS were to strike down Gay Marriage, it’s unlikely they would take away the licenses that already been issued. In that case, it is best halt all new licenses until the issue is decided by SCOTUS.

  10. avatar
    Arthur B. February 12, 2015 at 10:21 pm #

    john: In that case, it is best halt all new licenses until the issue is decided by SCOTUS.

    SCOTUS made its own decision on just that issue, and it explicitly disagreed with you.

    Alabama asked that the order be stayed until the final SCOTUS decision was made, citing reasons like yours and others. The Court refused, thus putting into full effect the lower court’s ruling that same-sex marriages should proceed.

    Judge Moore has taken an oath to support the Constitution.

  11. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2015 at 10:43 pm #

    john, why do you hate our Constitution?

  12. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2015 at 10:47 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Didn’t Alabama just pass that anti-sharia law talking about how no judge can base their decisions on foreign law.Yet that’s what they just did?

    Irony is lost on these folks.

  13. avatar
    john February 12, 2015 at 10:50 pm #

    I see no where in the Constitution where Gay Marriage is allowed. But, then again its kind of like Abortion. The Court invents stuff on general rights to allow such things to happen. I don’t support Gay Marriage. The real problem with Gay Marriage is that the Federal Courts have actually intrued or invaded on the Will of the People. In Alabama and other states, its has been by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE (Spelled out Explicitly in State Constitutions where have the Federal courts have relied on more generalized rights in the US Constitution.), that Gay Marriage be Banned. Federal Courts have stepped in a CAST ASIDE the Will of the People which I believe is completely wrong. In the 9th Amendment states that Rights not spelled out in the US Constitution belong to the States and or the People.

    Judge Roy Moore Supports and Defends the Will of the People.

  14. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2015 at 10:55 pm #

    john: Federal Courts have stepped in a CAST ASIDE the Will of the People which I believe is completely wrong.

    People complained that segregation was the “will of the people.”

  15. avatar
    Rickey February 12, 2015 at 10:59 pm #

    john: The Alabama case was declined but another case on Gay Marriage in before the SCOTUS.SCOTUS is expected to make a ruling this summer on whether it is legal nation wide.If SCOTUS were to strike down Gay Marriage, it’s unlikely they would take away the licenses that already been issued.In that case, it is best halt all new licenses until the issue is decided by SCOTUS.

    You are not going to like this, but SCOTUS has telegraphed how it is going to rule on same-sex marriage. The vote will be 7-2 or 6-3. By this summer same-sex marriage will be the law of the land in the United States.

    The reality is that the government has no compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. No one is hurt or even potentially hurt when gay people are allowed to marry. The notion that it is a slippery slope to legalizing incest is ridiculous, because incest has been proven to cause both emotional and physical damage, which gives the government a compelling reason to prohibit it.

  16. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2015 at 10:59 pm #

    Once again, john. You completely pussed out on answering a point blank question.
    Why do you hate our Constitution?

  17. avatar
    MattR February 12, 2015 at 11:02 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Once again, john. You completely pussed out on answering a point blank question.
    Why do you hate our Constitution?

    A hint for john – the question has nothing to do with support or opposition to gay marriage, but instead has to do with following the rulings of federal courts.

  18. avatar
    Rickey February 12, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

    john:
    I see no where in the Constitution where Gay Marriage is allowed.But, then again its kind of like Abortion.The Court invents stuff on general rights to allow such things to happen.I don’t support Gay Marriage.The real problem with Gay Marriage is that the Federal Courts have actually intrued or invaded on the Will of the People.In Alabama and other states, its has been by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE (Spelled out Explicitly in State Constitutions where have the Federal courts have relied on more generalized rights in the US Constitution.), that Gay Marriage be Banned.Federal Courts have stepped in a CAST ASIDE the Will of the People which I believe is completely wrong.In the 9th Amendment states that Rights not spelled out in the US Constitution belong to the States and or the People.

    Judge Roy Moore Supports and Defends the Will of the People.

    The “will of the people” does not trump the Constitutional right to equal protection. It’s in the 14th Amendment. You have have heard of it.

    …nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Why should homosexuals be denied to right to marry one another when that right is given to heterosexuals? The Constitution, which you claim to love, says that everyone must be treated equally under the law.

  19. avatar
    john February 12, 2015 at 11:18 pm #

    Rickey: The “will of the people” does not trump the Constitutional right to equal protection. It’s in the 14th Amendment. You have have heard of it.

    …nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Why should homosexuals be denied to right to marry one another when that right is given to heterosexuals? The Constitution, which you claim to love, says that everyone must be treated equally under the law.

    The Right to marry depends on the definition of Marriage. Many believe Marriage means it’s a union between a man and a woman. If that is so, then the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply. Then some believe that Marriage is union of any 2 persons. If that is so, then the 14th Amendment would apply. So it really depends upon what the definition of Marriage is. The Constitution doesn’t define it so it must be found elsewhere perhaps in common law.

  20. avatar
    Arthur B. February 12, 2015 at 11:23 pm #

    john: The Right to marry depends on the definition of Marriage.

    And if the definition of marriage that the Government uses discriminates against a group of people, then the Government must show at least a rational justification for using that definition as opposed to a non-discriminatory one. Otherwise it is in violation of the Constitution.

  21. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2015 at 11:28 pm #

    john: Many believe Marriage means it’s a union between a man and a woman.

    What a group of people believe is irrelevant to what is and isn’t Constitutional. The founding fathers very wisely set it up, so crap like Moore is trying to pull isn’t protected by it. He has repeatedly stated that his aversion to gay marriage is on the grounds of his Christian faith, and he was acting accordingly. That’s a HUGE Constitutional no-no!

  22. avatar
    john February 12, 2015 at 11:38 pm #

    Under his Christian Faith, the definition of Marriage would between a Man and Woman. As such, if the state is saying that isn’t so, that would considered a violation of person’s religious values, another Constitutional NO NO

  23. avatar
    Rickey February 12, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

    john:
    Under his Christian Faith, the definition of Marriage would between a Man and Woman.As such, if the state is saying that isn’t so, that would considered a violation of person’s religious values, another Constitutional NO NO

    People are perfectly free to believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. You can believe whatever you want to believe. Nobody is trying to force you to believe otherwise.

    What you can’t do is force other people to be subservient to your beliefs or to adhere to your beliefs. That would be a Constitutional no-no.

    Roy Moore wants everyone in Alabama to conform to his religious beliefs. He is not going to be allowed to do that. Nobody is forcing him to perform gay marriages.

    By the way, where does the Constitution say that heterosexuals have the right to get married?

  24. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2015 at 11:51 pm #

    john:
    Under his Christian Faith…

    Which he has to compartmentalize, when it comes to doing his job as a Government official. He’s free to practice his faith, right up until said practicing affects the rights of someone else, especially if they’re not of his faith! At that point he has to step the hell off. If you’re going to argue the Christian angle, then you’re saying that all non-Christians shouldn’t be allowed to marry either.

  25. avatar
    john February 12, 2015 at 11:55 pm #

    “Nobody is forcing him to perform gay marriages.”

    Any State Judge who shares Moore’s belief is being imposed by the state to perform an act contrary to his or her religious beliefs or values. So yes, the State is trying to forcing individuals to accept marriage to be Not between a man or woman.

    I guess you would run into the same problem of the state forcing doctors to perform abortions on women which is strictly against their values or beliefs.

  26. avatar
    Arthur Lampel February 12, 2015 at 11:57 pm #

    Johnny boy,

    Even you should not be that dumb.

    john February 12, 2015 at 11:38 pm (Quote) #

    Under his Christian Faith, the definition of Marriage would between a Man and Woman. As such, if the state is saying that isn’t so, that would considered a violation of person’s religious values, another Constitutional NO NO

  27. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2015 at 11:58 pm #

    john: Any State Judge who shares Moore’s belief is being imposed by the state to perform an act contrary to his or her religious beliefs or values.

    Again, if you’re a government employee, you’d best be ready to compartmentalize your religious affiliation. Its a job requirement. Don’t like it? Don’t work for the government in any capacity.

    john: I guess you would run into the same problem of the state forcing doctors to perform abortions on women which is strictly against their values or beliefs.

    Oh, you and your wildly incorrect straw men. Do try to stay on topic, you little prat.

  28. avatar
    Rickey February 12, 2015 at 11:59 pm #

    The Alabama State Constitution defines foreign law:

    Different from the law of the State of Alabama is foreign law, which is any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.

    The Alabama State Constitution goes on to say:

    The public policy of this state is to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the Alabama Constitution or of the United States Constitution, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or press, or any right of privacy or marriage.

    The Bible is not U.S. law. The Bible was not written in the United States, so clearly it meets the definition of “foreign law” as set forth in the State Constitution. The State Constitution goes on to say that applying foreign law to violate the right of people to get married is prohibited. Therefore, whatever the Bible says about homosexuality cannot be used to prohibit homosexuals in Alabama from marrying one another.

    http://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Foreign_Laws_in_Court,_Amendment_1_%282014%29,_constitutional_text_changes

  29. avatar
    Rickey February 13, 2015 at 12:04 am #

    john:
    “Nobody is forcing him to perform gay marriages.”

    Any State Judge who shares Moore’s belief is being imposed by the state to perform an act contrary to his or her religious beliefs or values.So yes, the State is trying to forcing individuals to accept marriage to be Not between a man or woman.

    I guess you would run into the same problem of the state forcing doctors to perform abortions on women which is strictly against their values or beliefs.

    What makes you believe that state judges are the only ones who perform marriages in Alabama?

    I’m sure that gay couples will have no trouble finding ministers or justices of the peace who will gladly marry them.

  30. avatar
    john February 13, 2015 at 12:06 am #

    Judge Roy Moore should make a proclamation that all judges in the state who don’t believe in gay Marriage, resign effectively immediately. They have that right and without Probate Judges, Gay Couples can’t get their licenses. If would have to be state wide and it would have immediate and everyone would have to do at once to effectively work.

  31. avatar
    MattR February 13, 2015 at 12:20 am #

    john:
    Judge Roy Moore should make a proclamation that all judges in the state who don’t believe in gay Marriage, resign effectively immediately.They have that right and without Probate Judges, Gay Couples can’t get their licenses.If would have to be state wide and it would have immediate and everyone would have to do at once to effectively work.

    When you say “effectively work” do you mean “piss off the rest of the citizens of the state who can no longer get married, buy/sell land, adopt a child or receive their inheritance”?

  32. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 13, 2015 at 12:22 am #

    john:
    Judge Roy Moore should make a proclamation that all judges in the state who don’t believe in gay Marriage, resign effectively immediately.They have that right and without Probate Judges, Gay Couples can’t get their licenses.If would have to be state wide and it would have immediate and everyone would have to do at once to effectively work.

    Lets say through some perfect storm of improbability, all probate judges in Alabama quit, just like that.
    All that has happened, is that the inevitable has been delayed until replacement judges are sworn in. Not even in your cartoon fantasy scenario are you going to find no one in the whole of Alabama unwilling to step up and do the job.

    Despite your hatred of our Constitution, equality will still prevail.

  33. avatar
    john February 13, 2015 at 12:31 am #

    Listening to Judge Moore now. He’s right. The Courts simply don’t have the power to define the define the definition of marriage. That is something reserved to the states. But at the same time, such a definition is discriminatory so you left with a Constitutional Dilemmna. Marriage is simply not defined in the US Constitution so the Court simply can’t “Invent” the term but you also can’t discriminate.

  34. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 13, 2015 at 12:36 am #

    john:
    The Courts simply don’t have the power to define the definition of marriage.

    Wrong again, john. Among other duties, a judge’s job is to interpret the law. That includes assigning legal definitions. I’m a layman and I understand that.

  35. avatar
    MattR February 13, 2015 at 12:43 am #

    john: But at the same time, such a definition is discriminatory so you left with a Constitutional Dilemmna.

    The only reason to call this a constitutional dilemma is because you support the law being overturned. Otherwise it is pretty clear that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and states are not allowed to violate it when they are exercising their powers.

  36. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 13, 2015 at 12:44 am #

    MattR: Otherwise it is pretty clear that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and states are not allowed to violate it when they are exercising their powers.

    Which is why I always get a kick out of the whole “But what about the will of millions of people?!” excuse. Well, in a case like this, those millions haven’t a leg to stand on. They support something that the Constitution simply does not allow.

  37. avatar
    john February 13, 2015 at 12:47 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Wrong again, john. Among other duties, a judge’s job is to interpret the law. That includes assigning legal definitions.

    Sure, that’s what Legislatures do, that’s what State Constitutions do, they define things. The Alabama Constitution has defined the definition of Marriage. The Federal Courts simply don’t have the power to step in and “Reinvent” the definition of marriage, Discrimination not withstanding. The Federal Courts are assigned with “interpretating” that definition and applying to existing law.

  38. avatar
    MattR February 13, 2015 at 12:54 am #

    john: The Alabama Constitution has defined the definition of Marriage. The Federal Courts simply don’t have the power to step in and “Reinvent” the definition of marriage, Discrimination not withstanding. The Federal Courts are assigned with “interpretating” that definition and applying to existing law.

    Federal Courts area also assigned the task of determining if that definition violates the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights are pretty meaningless if Federal Courts can’t enforce them.

  39. avatar
    Rickey February 13, 2015 at 12:55 am #

    john:
    Judge Roy Moore should make a proclamation that all judges in the state who don’t believe in gay Marriage, resign effectively immediately.They have that right and without Probate Judges, Gay Couples can’t get their licenses.If would have to be state wide and it would have immediate and everyone would have to do at once to effectively work.

    Good luck with that. Alabama Probate Judges in the state’s largest counties are paid more than $100,000 per year. Do you really think that any of them would give up their plum positions because they disapprove of gay marriage? If they resigned, Alabamans would be lining up to replace them. In the meantime, probate clerks would be issuing marriage licenses.

    Also, probate judges have other duties besides issuing marriage licenses.

  40. avatar
    John Reilly February 13, 2015 at 12:55 am #

    If Judge Moore was an Orthodox Jewish person and Chief Justice, could he ban bacon because eating pork is an abomination? What will my family do with the pigs we raise? Would that be a taking?

    The Supreme Court decided in Loving v. Virginia that there were Constitutional limits to the way states define marriage.

    As to the rest of Judge Moore’s views, his philosophy lost the Civil War. His views were not amusing in 1865 and age has not improved his position.

    And, I note as a Roman Catholic, that the Ten Commandments Judge Moore put into the courthouse were not the Roman Catholic version.

  41. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 13, 2015 at 12:56 am #

    john: The Alabama Constitution has defined the definition of Marriage.

    And according to the Supremacy Clause, the US Constitution trumps Alabama’s.

    With that, I’m taking my leave of your stupid ass. You still never answered as to why you hate the US Constitution so much. I can only stand to argue with fence post for so long, and I’ve hit my saturation point with you.

  42. avatar
    slash2k February 13, 2015 at 12:58 am #

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    Does that sound familiar, John?

    if the federal constitution says ‘don’t discriminate,’ then whatever Alabama says to the contrary is without force or effect. Judges in every state are bound by the U.S. Constitution first and foremost, and anything in their state constitution that disagrees with the feds is just so much meaningless babble.

  43. avatar
    Rickey February 13, 2015 at 1:00 am #

    john: Sure, that’s what Legislatures do, that’s what State Constitutions do, they define things.The Alabama Constitution has defined the definition of Marriage.The Federal Courts simply don’t have the power to step in and “Reinvent” the definition of marriage, Discrimination not withstanding.The Federal Courts are assigned with “interpretating” that definition and applying to existing law.

    Wrong again. Federal Courts are assigned with upholding the U.S. Constitution. Have you every read the U.S. Constitution from beginning to end? Have you ever heard of the Supremacy Clause? State laws which violate the U.S. Constitution are unenforceable. Where there is a conflict between the U.S. Constitution and state law, the U.S. Constitution wins. Every time.

  44. avatar
    OllieOxenFree February 13, 2015 at 1:40 am #

    john: Under his Christian Faith, the definition of Marriage would between a Man and Woman. As such, if the state is saying that isn’t so, that would considered a violation of person’s religious values, another Constitutional NO NO

    I was raised Lutheran, john. Specific denominations of the Lutheran church is accepting of the blessing of same sex marriages, has LGBT pastors, and encourage their congregations to be accepting of same sex relationships.

    By your argument, a State that defines a marriage as, “between a Man and Woman,” and would deny same-sex marriage would be considered a violation of my religious values and a Constitutional NO NO.

  45. avatar
    Lupin February 13, 2015 at 2:24 am #

    So in addition to being a racist and a xenophobe, john is also a homophobe. What a surprise!

  46. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 13, 2015 at 5:14 am #

    So, John since you believe that the Fed shouldn’t be allowed to intrude in to the sacred matters of marriage as far as the states are concerned, what is your considered take on the fact that people of color could not legally marry people of the white persuasion for most of the years we have been a nation, in most of the states thereof, or that if they had been married somewhere where it was legal, that it was not recognized in those aforementioned states, and the mean old Dist court ruled that was bad and wrong and struck down all those state approved and sanctioned laws, in their entirety, and then to add insult to injury, the Supreme Court followed suit and said it wasn’t to be legal ANYWHERE due to violations of the 14th Amendment. So tell me John just how does that sit with you?

  47. avatar
    faceman February 13, 2015 at 6:28 am #

    A few years ago, California passed a State Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The SCOTUS struck that down as a violation of the US Constitution. Nothings trumps the US Constitution.

    John, you are correct in one thing – any public official who does not want to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple can resign rather than do so. But as long as they remain in office, they are required to act in accordance with the law. The reason there is no prayer in public schools is that government should not even give the appearance of promoting religion. (Sometimes referred to as separation of church and state.)

  48. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 13, 2015 at 9:11 am #

    john: Any State Judge who shares Moore’s belief is being imposed by the state to perform an act contrary to his or her religious beliefs or values. So yes, the State is trying to forcing individuals to accept marriage to be Not between a man or woman.

    So if a judge in Alabama felt that a black man and white woman or vice versa had no right to marry and denied them the right you’d be okay with that?

  49. avatar
    Reality Check February 13, 2015 at 9:58 am #

    That is why IMO Birthers like John actually hate the Constitution. That is, they hate the real Constitution and love the one that only exists in their minds.

    Rickey: The Constitution, which you claim to love, says that everyone must be treated equally under the law.

  50. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 13, 2015 at 10:02 am #

    Reality Check:
    That is why IMO Birthers like John actually hate the Constitution. That is, they hate the real Constitution andlove the one that only exists in their minds.

    They mistreat the Constitution the way religious fundies mistreat their respective holy texts. They cherry pick what they like, ignore what they do not, and misinterpret/warp whatever they can out of context, if they think it will further their argument.

  51. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 13, 2015 at 10:30 am #

    john: The real problem with Gay Marriage is that the Federal Courts have actually intrued or invaded on the Will of the People. In Alabama and other states . . .

    —–
    Here you go, John. Help is on the way….

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/10/kkk-calls-to-arms-to-combat-same-sex-marriage-in-alabama-salutes-judge-roy-moore/

  52. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 13, 2015 at 10:39 am #

    J.D. Sue: —–
    Here you go, John.Help is on the way….

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/10/kkk-calls-to-arms-to-combat-same-sex-marriage-in-alabama-salutes-judge-roy-moore/

    Well, that certainly explains john’s man crush on Moore. He’s truly a bigot after his own twisted heart.

  53. avatar
    Rickey February 13, 2015 at 10:47 am #

    Poor John. His world is crumbling. The President of the United States is black, the next president may be a woman, undocumented immigrants are being treated humanely, the Pope is at least somewhat progressive, and by June same-sex marriage will be legal throughout the U.S.

    What abomination is next? Cats and dogs living together?

  54. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 13, 2015 at 10:52 am #

    Maybe he’ll decide that America is no longer the place for him. However, his options for countries where the law is dictated by right wing fundamentalists are pretty slim pickings.

  55. avatar
    faceman February 13, 2015 at 11:04 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Maybe he’ll decide that America is no longer the place for him. However, his options for countries where the law is dictated by right wing fundamentalists are pretty slim pickings.

    May he could try Iran. Maybe its not quite what he’d call ‘right wing’ but they sure do base their government on religion. Or at least, how they interpret it. ISIS is another group that believes in religious fundamentalism.

  56. avatar
    Lupin February 13, 2015 at 11:23 am #

    J.D. Sue: —–
    Here you go, John.Help is on the way….

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/10/kkk-calls-to-arms-to-combat-same-sex-marriage-in-alabama-salutes-judge-roy-moore/

    A long while ago, I posted a link to a book I found on google books that contained former Confederate Brigadier General George Gordon’s “Prescript”, the document that spelled out the KKK dogma.

    In effect it’s the roadmap for a WASP supremacist country and it makes for a fascinating read. There isn’t a comma in there that Mario Apuzzo, Adrian Nash, Falcon, john and all their ilk wouldn’t approve of.

  57. avatar
    Reality Check February 13, 2015 at 11:58 am #

    Good question. What say you John? It is a natural extension of your logic isn’t it? States rights and all that.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So if a judge in Alabama felt that a black man and white woman or vice versa had no right to marry and denied them the right you’d be okay with that?

  58. avatar
    y_p_w February 13, 2015 at 12:06 pm #

    faceman:
    A few years ago, California passed a State Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.The SCOTUS struck that down as a violation of the US Constitution.Nothings trumps the US Constitution.

    I don’t think SCOTUS specifically struck that down. They’re kind of in a holding pattern on that. It was struck down by a district court ruling and upheld by an appellate court ruling, but SCOTUS merely denied review. The appellate ruling was also dismissed by SCOTUS on the grounds that the proponents (the state refused to argue the case) had no standing, so the district court ruling is currently in force.

  59. avatar
    ScottRS February 13, 2015 at 12:08 pm #

    john: Federal Courts have actually intrued or invaded on the Will of the People.

    Try this one, John:

    “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

    (emphasis added)

    J. Robert H. Jackson for the Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

  60. avatar
    faceman February 13, 2015 at 1:12 pm #

    y_p_w: I don’t think SCOTUS specifically struck that down. They’re kind of in a holding pattern on that. It was struck down by a district court ruling and upheld by an appellate court ruling, but SCOTUS merely denied review. The appellate ruling was also dismissed by SCOTUS on the grounds that the proponents (the state refused to argue the case) had no standing, so the district court ruling is currently in force.

    I stand corrected. Still, the fact remains that a State Constitutional Amendment was deemed unconstitutional in light of the US Constitution.

  61. avatar
    y_p_w February 13, 2015 at 5:17 pm #

    faceman: I stand corrected.Still, the fact remains that a State Constitutional Amendment was deemed unconstitutional in light of the US Constitution.

    Still – Perry v. Schwarzenegger was the first case of its kind that was decided in a federal court. That basically set up the flurry of cases tried in different district and circuit courts. It’s finally going to SCOTUS this year.

    Certain SCOTUS isn’t going to make it illegal for a state to allow SSM (john sort of hinted at that) or restore DOMA. The only question is whether all states and territories will be required to allow and recognize SSM.

  62. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 13, 2015 at 6:38 pm #

    Lupin: A long while ago, I posted a link to a book I found on google books that contained former Confederate Brigadier General George Gordon’s “Prescript”, the document that spelled out the KKK dogma.

    In effect it’s the roadmap for a WASP supremacist country and it makes for a fascinating read. There isn’t a comma in there that Mario Apuzzo, Adrian Nash, Falcon, john and all their ilk wouldn’t approve of.

    —-
    I don’t remember your link, but thanks–your reference led me to this txt file, which contains the Prescript and a lot more… https://archive.org/stream/invisibleempires00hornrich/invisibleempires00hornrich_djvu.txt

    I find the birthers to be remarkably transparent. Especially stunning to me is that they continue unabashedly to argue Dred Scott…

  63. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 14, 2015 at 2:13 am #

    So, John, I asked you a question, a really very simple question, and you still haven’t responded. Come on John, you know you want to, just get it all out in the open.

  64. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 14, 2015 at 2:41 am #

    ScottRS: Try this one, John:

    “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

    (emphasis added)

    J. Robert H. Jackson for the Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

    The Eligibility Clause was never intended to prevent an ineligible person from being sworn in as President, thus the federal court has repeatedly ruled objector do not have standing.

    The Eligibility Clause is utilized after an ineligible President is sworn in and an objector cites the The Bill of Rights as a basis for individual protection against the usurper and the will of the majority. Unfortunately, the federal courts have refused to hear objections to Obama’s eligibility to the thunderous applause of the majority and not allowed a case to proceed to discovery and be heard on the merits.

    As the majority tramples The Bill of Rights, the constitutional republic is diminished because each and every official action of the ineligible President is a violation of the US Constitution. Once a violation of the Constitution occurs it cannot be retroactively fixed. All laws, rules, regulations and appointments signed into action by the ineligible President are voided after exposure of ineligibility.

    The majority can destroy the republic with an ineligible President, and the courts have seen fit to let them.

  65. avatar
    Lupin February 14, 2015 at 3:32 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The majority can destroy the republic with an ineligible President, and the courts have seen fit to let them.

    I don’t know anything about US Law but it seems to me that you first postulate that the President is ineligible, and then you worry and/or object to the consequences.

    But if the president is perfectly eligible — which he appears to be by a mountain of evidence — then none of what you’re saying has any relevance at all (even if it were true, which i can’t tell).

    In effect your post amounts to: if the president were a mouse, we’ll all be obliged to eat cheese.

  66. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 14, 2015 at 4:02 am #

    Svenski, thank you once again for allowing me the privilege of telling you that you are a concomitant and ignorant ass.

    The Eligibility clause is there precisely to say who can and can’t run for President. It is the responsibility of the parties and ultimately the Presidential Electors and Congress assembled to determine if the party in question is eligible, they are the constitutional checks on this, not some disgruntled third or fourth party candidate. The Presidential Electors and Congress assembled are the only ones who constitutionally have a say in the matter. And not all your ignorant bleating is going to change that. The courts have figured that out, why haven’t you!!! The two bodies who have a constitutional say in this matter have spoken, twice now, the matter is done, settled, ended, Obama is President, will remain President until the expiration of his term, and his actions, whether approved of by you and your collection of the willfully ignorant are fact, valid, and lawful, and will remain so. The only two bodies who constitutionally could say otherwise have had no valid reason to do so and the matter is ended. They have twice ratified his election, which means they do not agree with you therefore the matter is legally ended.

    SvenMagnussen: The Eligibility Clause was never intended to prevent an ineligible person from being sworn in as President, thus the federal court has repeatedly ruled objector do not have standing.

    The Eligibility Clause is utilized after an ineligible President is sworn in and an objector cites the The Bill of Rights as a basis for individual protection against the usurper and the will of the majority. Unfortunately, the federal courts have refused to hear objections to Obama’s eligibility to the thunderous applause of the majorityand not allowed a case to proceed to discovery andbe heard on the merits.

    As the majority tramples The Bill of Rights, the constitutional republic is diminished because each and every official action of the ineligible President is a violation of the US Constitution. Once a violation of the Constitution occurs it cannot be retroactively fixed. All laws, rules, regulations and appointments signed into action by the ineligible President are voided after exposure of ineligibility.

    The majority can destroy the republic with an ineligible President, and the courts have seen fit to let them.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2015 at 9:01 am #

    Several issues with that:

    1) An ineligible president is not equivalent to destroying the republic.
    2) It takes both the concurrence of the voters and the Congress for a president to be elected.
    3) It is not certain that the courts are unwilling to decide a presidential eligibility question, given a real controversy (and by that I mean real damage to someone with standing).

    Prof. Gordon’s scenario has not been played out yet: a suit by a viable primary contender against another candidate. For example a hypothetical Clinton v. Democratic Party lawsuit in 2008 might well have proceeded to judgment on the very issues the birthers raise. Clinton, conspiracy theories notwithstanding, was never a birther. In the case of Ted Cruz, should he run, a lawsuit might give resolution at least to the definition of natural born citizen.

    SvenMagnussen: The majority can destroy the republic with an ineligible President, and the courts have seen fit to let them.

  68. avatar
    Reality Check February 14, 2015 at 10:04 am #

    So did I miss where john answered your question?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So if a judge in Alabama felt that a black man and white woman or vice versa had no right to marry and denied them the right you’d be okay with that?

  69. avatar
    John Reilly February 14, 2015 at 10:20 am #

    Sven is back.

    During your hiatus did you get a copy, certified or not, of Pres. Obama’s naturalization papers? You know, the ones you swear exist. The ones that prove your point. Those papers.

  70. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 14, 2015 at 10:29 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Several issues with that:

    1) An ineligible president is not equivalent to destroying the republic.
    2) It takes both the concurrence of the voters and the Congress for a president to be elected.
    3) It is not certain that the courts are unwilling to decide a presidential eligibility question, given a real controversy (and by that I mean real damage to someone with standing).

    Prof. Gordon’s scenario has not been played out yet: a suit by a viable primary contender against another candidate. For example a hypothetical Clinton v. Democratic Party lawsuit in 2008 might well have proceeded to judgment on the very issues the birthers raise. Clinton, conspiracy theories notwithstanding, was never a birther. In the case of Ted Cruz, should he run, a lawsuit might give resolution at least to the definition of natural born citizen.

    Congress is not constitutionally authorized to prevent the will of the majority from electing an ineligible President. Congress is only authorized to validate the vote count by the Electoral College. It is up to the states to prevent an ineligible President from getting on the ballot and individual voters in the Electoral College to vote faithlessly if their due diligence determines a candidate voted on by the majority is ineligible. Nevertheless, some states allow an ineligible Presidential candidate ballot access as a First Amendment right.

    The Founders devised this method of electing a President to prevent an ineligible President from being elected when the will of the majority demanded the ineligible President be sworn in. If the states and the majority of the Electoral College acquiesce to the will of the majority to elect an ineligible President, the last resort for an objector in the minority is to cite the Eligibility Clause and The Bill of Rights in federal court to seek relief from tyranny.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2015 at 10:55 am #

    So exactly what do you think is meant by this phrase “failed to qualify” in the 20th amendment?

    SvenMagnussen: Congress is not constitutionally authorized to prevent the will of the majority from electing an ineligible President.

  72. avatar
    Rickey February 14, 2015 at 10:56 am #

    Reality Check:
    So did I miss where john answered your question?

    You didn’t miss a thing. After taking a thrashing in this thread, John has moved on to spouting more nonsense about birth certificates.

  73. avatar
    Rickey February 14, 2015 at 11:02 am #

    SvenMagnussen: All laws, rules, regulations and appointments signed into action by the ineligible President are voided after exposure of ineligibility.

    The Magic Reset Button!

  74. avatar
    Arthur B. February 14, 2015 at 11:16 am #

    SvenMagnussen: All laws, rules, regulations and appointments signed into action by the ineligible President are voided after exposure of ineligibility.

    Absolute BS, Sven, as you’ve been told many times.

    What do you think, is it time for you to try to support your position again by misrepresenting Buckley v. Valeo? After all, it’s only been a few days since the last time you were caught out on that howler.

  75. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 14, 2015 at 2:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So exactly what do you think is meant by this phrase “failed to qualify” in the 20th amendment?

    Congress votes to reject the vote count or there is a tie vote is “failed to qualify.”

    The vote count is sealed before the counting of the votes. Congress is only authorized to hear the vote count on the day the vote count is read aloud. If there is an objection, Congress is authorized to debate the matter for two hours and is not authorized to depose witnesses, subpoena documents, or enjoin a federal officer from swearing in a duly elected President-elect.

    It is the job of the electors in the Electoral College to vote faithlessly if the will of the majority popular vote chooses an ineligible President. If the electors willfully or unknowingly vote to support an ineligible President per the demands of the majority of the population, then Congress and federal courts are not constitutionally authorized to prevent an ineligible President from assuming the office.

    It is incorrect to assume the majority cannot vote to dismantle the constitutional republic with an ineligible President. The Founders installed the Electoral College system to prevent the majority from voting to dismantle the constitutional republic. If the Electoral College fails to prevent an ineligible President through faithless voting, then the Congress and the courts are powerless to stop them.

    The Constitution was amended with the The Bill of Rights to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. Congress is a servant of the majority. The courts have failed individual objectors to an ineligible President.

  76. avatar
    Matt February 14, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

    john:
    I see no where in the Constitution where Gay Marriage is allowed.

    I see nowhere in the Constitution where Heterosexual Marriage is allowed.

    For that matter, I see nowhere in the Constitution where being a birther is allowed.

  77. avatar
    bob February 14, 2015 at 5:53 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: If there is an objection, Congress is authorized to debate the matter for two hours and is not authorized to depose witnesses, subpoena documents, or enjoin a federal officer from swearing in a duly elected President-elect.

    It can, however, not certify the Electoral College’s vote. Thus blocking an ineligible president.

  78. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 14, 2015 at 6:25 pm #

    Rickey: You didn’t miss a thing. After taking a thrashing in this thread, John has moved on to spouting more nonsense about birth certificates.

    Don’t you get it John never answers questions instead he jumps from thread to thread and changes the subject each time he’s asked anything.

  79. avatar
    Northland10 February 14, 2015 at 7:04 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: an objector cites the The Bill of Rights as a basis for individual protection against the usurper and the will of the majority.

    Cite The Bill of Rights?

  80. avatar
    Northland10 February 14, 2015 at 7:20 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The Founders devised this method of electing a President to prevent an ineligible President from being elected when the will of the majority demanded the ineligible President be sworn in.

    Well, it is hard to figure out if the founders were correct since the majority has never selected electors for an ineligible President, the Electoral College has never elected an ineligible President, and the majority never demanded an ineligible President be sworn in, owing to the lack of any ineligible President.

    Sooooo. You claim is that the founders set up the Electoral College to prevent the election of an ineligible President. Them founders must have been real smart because it’s worked so far.

  81. avatar
    John Reilly February 14, 2015 at 7:28 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Congress is only authorized to hear the vote count on the day the vote count is read aloud. If there is an objection, Congress is authorized to debate the matter for two hours and is not authorized to depose witnesses, subpoena documents, or enjoin a federal officer from swearing in a duly elected President-elect.

    Congress can pass a law and do whatever it wants to investigate. It did so in 1876. The two hour debate limit is by law, not by the Constitution.

    Doc, you really need to make Sven write the 12th Amendment on a blackboard until it sinks in.

  82. avatar
    Joey February 14, 2015 at 7:55 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Congress votes to reject the vote count or there is a tie vote is “failed to qualify.”

    The vote count is sealed before the counting of the votes. Congress is only authorized to hear the vote count on the day the vote count is read aloud. If there is an objection, Congress is authorized to debate the matter for two hours and is not authorized to depose witnesses, subpoena documents, or enjoin a federal officer from swearing in a duly elected President-elect.

    It is the job of the electors in the Electoral College to vote faithlessly if the will of the majority popular vote chooses an ineligible President. If the electors willfully or unknowingly vote to support an ineligible President per the demands of the majority of the population, then Congress and federal courts are not constitutionally authorized to prevent an ineligible President from assuming the office.

    It is incorrect to assume the majority cannot vote to dismantle the constitutional republic with an ineligible President. The Founders installed the Electoral College system to prevent the majority from voting to dismantle the constitutional republic. If the Electoral College fails to prevent an ineligible President through faithless voting, then the Congress and the courts are powerless to stop them.

    The Constitution was amended with the The Bill of Rights to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. Congress is a servant of the majority. The courts have failed individual objectors to an ineligible President.

    29 states plus the District of Columbia have laws against faithless electors. 21 states permit faithless electors.

  83. avatar
    Joey February 14, 2015 at 9:45 pm #

    The time to stop an ineligible candidate is before the printing of ballots for the election. For example, Barack Obama announced that he was running for president on February 10, 2007. Ballots weren’t printed until August-September of 2008.
    There was more than a year to make the ineligibility case to states’ Chief Elections Officials.

  84. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2015 at 10:01 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It is incorrect to assume the majority cannot vote to dismantle the constitutional republic with an ineligible President.

    It is incorrect to assume the majority cannot vote to dismantle the Constitutional Republic with an eligible President, either.

    You might be interested to know that the Constitution itself spells out the procedure for that to happen. It involves only the ratification of an Amendment stating that the Constitution is dissolved.

    The Founders installed the Electoral College system to prevent the majority from voting to dismantle the constitutional republic.

    The Electoral College has nothing to do with amending the Constitution. It was installed to make the election process easier for a rural nation with slow communications. It also assumed that there was no such thing as political parties – an assumption that proved very short lived.

    If the Electoral College fails to prevent an ineligible President through faithless voting, then the Congress and the courts are powerless to stop them.

    Untrue. The Congress can stop them.

    The Constitution was amended with the The Bill of Rights to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. Congress is a servant of the majority.

    Correct. The Bill of Rights was not put in place to make “government by majority” impossible; but to ensure that the minority was not discriminated against and by that course the “government by majority” suborned to “government by tyranny”.

    The courts have failed individual objectors to an ineligible President.

    Courts have not failed, but have in fact succeeded in ensuring that a Constitutionally elected President and his Administration is not blocked from its lawful job of Administering the Government of the people.

    If every individual that didn’t like the fact that the President’s skin is a few shades darker than their own was able to object to the election of the President, there would be no President, ever, who could govern. Every statement you make is dripping with ignorance, malice, and bigotry.

    Oh, did I say “ignorance”? I can’t seem to grasp that I’ve emphasized that quite enough for you. Let me try harder: your posts reveal a deep ignorance, so deep in fact that mere stupidity would look like a clear night with the stars shining magnificently above your head. Your ignorance is so deep that if you were in hospital for it, they would have removed life support years ago. Your ignorance is so deep that I’ve run out of patience looking for analogies already.

  85. avatar
    faceman February 15, 2015 at 8:57 pm #

    Joey:
    The time to stop an ineligible candidate is before the printing of ballots for the election. For example, Barack Obama announced that he was running for president on February 10, 2007. Ballots weren’t printed until August-September of 2008.
    There was more than a year to make the ineligibility case to states’ Chief Elections Officials.

    There were challenges in many states. None of them succeeded.

  86. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 16, 2015 at 3:04 am #

    None of them succeeded because they were illusory to begin with. There was nothing substantive then or now.

    faceman: There were challenges in many states.None of them succeeded.

  87. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 16, 2015 at 3:42 am #

    Joey:
    The time to stop an ineligible candidate is before the printing of ballots for the election. For example, Barack Obama announced that he was running for president on February 10, 2007. Ballots weren’t printed until August-September of 2008.
    There was more than a year to make the ineligibility case to states’ Chief Elections Officials.

    If Sven were sincerely concerned about ineligible Presidents, he has his work cut out for him:

    Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio.

    You could start right this minute, pardner. You should spare no effort in filing suits to prevent them being on the ballot, because their eligibility is much more questionable (from a Birfoon standpoint) than was Obama’s.

    But you won’t, because you are a lying hypocritical racist bigot. It ain’t about the Constitution with you. You aren’t fooling anyone.

  88. avatar
    Joey February 16, 2015 at 3:54 am #

    faceman: There were challenges in many states.None of them succeeded.

    Yep, and there you have it.

  89. avatar
    Bovril February 16, 2015 at 6:38 am #

    Anyway……

    Sven my dear boy, your primary contention around Obama’s “illegitamacy” for the office of President revolves around your curious notion that Obama somehow lost his NBC status, was then naturalized and then had this naturalization “cancelled”.

    As has been demonstrated to you previously, such activities are available as public records for a clever little chap like yourself to access.

    So, come along Sven, where are these records, surely you believe your own contentions and desperatley need to get Obama revealed as this fraud..?

    Where oh where is your work product around this vital task..?

  90. avatar
    faceman February 16, 2015 at 10:00 am #

    It’s easy. If the birthers want the rest of the country to acknowledge the two citizen parent definition of NBC, all they have to do is pass a Constitutional Amendment specifically defining it so.

    That’s the beauty of the Constitution. You could do that. But, in order to avoid having a ‘tyranny of the majority,’ you have to have more that a simple majority. Of course, even with the requirement of a ‘supermajority,’ it is possible that a ‘bad’ Amendment could be passed (Anyone remember prohibition?). That’s why its also possible to repeal an amendment in the same manner. That’s also the beauty of the Constitution.

    So, get cracking, birthers. It ain’t gonna happen by itself. It’s the job as never gets started that takes the longest to finish.

  91. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 16, 2015 at 3:03 pm #

    Thomas Brown: If Sven were sincerely concerned about ineligible Presidents, he has his work cut out for him:

    Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio.

    You could start right this minute, pardner.You should spare no effort in filing suits to prevent them being on the ballot, because their eligibility is much more questionable (from a Birfoon standpoint) than was Obama’s.

    But you won’t, because you are a lying hypocritical racist bigot.It ain’t about the Constitution with you.You aren’t fooling anyone.

    I’ve stated Cruz was ineligible to assume the Office of the President of the United States and it’s not because I hate Canadians or because his father is Hispanic. Of course, I expect you to falsely accuse me of xenophobia and racial bigotry when I object to Cruz assuming the Office of the President of the United States after he is sworn-in.

    The Founders never intended for the majority from being prevented from electing whomever they chose as their leader. The Eligibility Clause and the The Bill of Rights are for the minority after the majority votes for tyranny and the dismantling of the constitutional republic. Or, as Obama refers to it, “Change you can believe in.”

    It’s ironic some of you believe the people can vote to amend the Constitution to dismantle it and that the Congress and the Courts can prevent the people from voting an ineligible President into office. When Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service writes,“The Constitution does not define the term ‘natural born Citizen,’ nor are the notes from the debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 instructive as to any specific collective intent of the framers concerning the meaning of the term.” (See CRS – Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born”, CRS Memo, 7-5700, http://www.crs.gov , R42097.), then it is implausible and unreasonable for the Courts and the Congress to prevent someone from taking office because they don’t meet the definition of an undefined term. Consequently, Obots attempt to define the term and choose to believe their leaders have agreed with them and not challenged the ineligible Obama. In reality, the Congress and the Courts have recognized they do not have authority to prevent an ineligible President from taking office.

  92. avatar
    Suranis February 16, 2015 at 3:19 pm #

    Yeah, the Klan attacked Catholics as much as they attacked blacks, not that you will ever see a film about that

    There is a similar debate happening over here in Ireland at the moment, which is ignoring the fact that gay weddings have been happening in Ireland for 20 years, but gays are being discriminated against dontchakow. I was told by an American that the “civil partnerships” leave out hundreds of rights enjoyed by hetro marriages, and i admit I f*ced him out of it as I actually know Irish law and he was just repeating a stupid misinformed line he read somewhere. Civil and Religious marriages are totally separate under Irish law, and every single married couple has a civil partnership that is generally performed after the ceremony. There was a story on the front page of the limerick leader last week about a man who as been trying to get his Catholic marriage recognized by the State for the last 16 ears, but the state refuses as the wife died before the 3 month waiting period was up. The Catholic marriage was performed by the hospital chaplain when the wife got ill

    Yes, I’m uncomfortable with Gay unions being called marriages. Call me a homophone if you want.

    Lupin: A long while ago, I posted a link to a book I found on google books that contained former Confederate Brigadier General George Gordon’s “Prescript”, the document that spelled out the KKK dogma.

    In effect it’s the roadmap for a WASP supremacist country and it makes for a fascinating read. There isn’t a comma in there that Mario Apuzzo, Adrian Nash, Falcon, john and all their ilk wouldn’t approve of.

  93. avatar
    Suranis February 16, 2015 at 3:23 pm #

    The term was defined in 1612. Sorry the news hasn’t reached you yet.

    SvenMagnussen: Consequently, Obots attempt to define the term and choose to believe their leaders have agreed with them and not challenged the ineligible Obama.

  94. avatar
    bovril February 16, 2015 at 4:02 pm #

    Svennie, focus, naturalization certificate and cancellation thereof, hop hop little man.

  95. avatar
    Arthur B. February 16, 2015 at 4:07 pm #

    bovril:
    Svennie, focus, naturalization certificate and cancellation thereof, hop hop little man.

    It’s funny, isn’t it? Sven continues to advance his Parade of Horribles concerning a supposedly ineligible president, yet when it comes to presenting his evidence of ineligibility he goes strangely silent.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2015 at 5:14 pm #

    Funny how these coincidences happen. You mentioned my old web site, and on it is a very old essay I wrote addressing your comment below.

    http://www.davnet.org/kevin/essays/frob.html

    As I said, that is a very old article from a time, and I have a different view today.

    Suranis: Yes, I’m uncomfortable with Gay unions being called marriages. Call me a homophone if you want.

  97. avatar
    Keith February 16, 2015 at 5:27 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It’s ironic some of you believe the people can vote to amend the Constitution to dismantle it

    Why ironic?

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    “We, the People” created the Constitution. “We, the People” can abandon it if “We, the People” so choose.

    It is necessarily and rightly very hard to do that, but it is the right of “We, the People”. Just as “eligible” does not mean “electable” it is also true that “possible” doesn’t mean “achievable”.

    Something jumped out at me as I pasted the Preamble in the above section. The document is a Constitution for the United States, not of. The Constitution itself, in its very first sentence is saying that the “United States” is something that is not defined by the Constitution, but that the Constitution is ‘only’ the ultimate set of rules under which the “United States” will operate. The collective unconcious seems to think that the Constitution is the definition of the “United States” and without it there is no “United States”. This is wrong. The Constitution is just the definition of the Government of the United States.

    If “We, the People” choose to change the definition of how the Government works, that is the perogative of “We, the People”; and the procedure for doing that is built into the existing Constitution because the Founding generation knew that was precisely what would be needed from time to time.

  98. avatar
    Northland10 February 16, 2015 at 6:21 pm #

    Sven, Congress never said they are powerless to prevent an ineligible President. All they have done is certified the results without objection. They obviously rcognized that the President is a natural born citizen. The Constitution wins again.

  99. avatar
    John Reilly February 16, 2015 at 7:00 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It’s ironic some of you believe the people can vote to amend the Constitution to dismantle it

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry is a big defender of the Constitution. Except for the 7 little changes he wants. Some folks might think that he wants to dismantle the Constitution.

  100. avatar
    Rickey February 16, 2015 at 7:41 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Consequently, Obots attempt to define the term and choose to believe their leaders have agreed with them and not challenged the ineligible Obama.

    Actually we are just adhering to the definition that we all learned in school. With a few specific exceptions, everyone born in the United States is eligible to be president.

    The reason that Obama’s election was not challenged by a single member of Congress is that they all were taught the same thing. You can’t find a single history text, civics text, or constitutional law text which says otherwise.

    That said, I am looking forward to watching you lead the charge against Cruz, Rubio, or Jindal if one of them is nominated to be the Republican candidate in 2016,

  101. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 16, 2015 at 8:51 pm #

    Keith: Why ironic?

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    “We, the People” created the Constitution. “We, the People” can abandon it if “We, the People” so choose.

    It is necessarily and rightly very hard to do that, but it is the right of “We, the People”. Just as “eligible” does not mean “electable” it is also true that “possible” doesn’t mean “achievable”.

    Something jumped out at me as I pasted the Preamble in the above section. The document is a Constitution for the United States, not of. The Constitution itself, in its very first sentence is saying that the “United States” is something that is not defined by the Constitution, but that the Constitution is ‘only’ the ultimate set of rules under which the “United States” will operate. The collective unconcious seems to think that the Constitution is the definition of the “United States” and without it there is no “United States”. This is wrong. The Constitution is just the definition of the Government of the United States.

    If “We, the People” choose to change the definition of how the Government works, that is the perogative of “We, the People”; and the procedure for doing that is built into the existing Constitution because the Founding generation knew that was precisely what would be needed from time to time.

    The majority of people, whether they realize it or not, have voted to dismantle the constitutional republic by electing an ineligible President. You’re trying to convince me the people can dismantle the Constitution through an amendment and I’m telling you they’ve done it by electing a naturalized citizen to be sworn in as President of the United States.

    Once the Eligibility Clause, Appointments Clause, Presentment Clause and many other clauses of the US Constitution are violated, then they are violated in perpetuity. Buckley v. Valeo concerns statutory defects. The de facto officer doctrine provides for continuity of the constitutional republic if there are statutory defects in the law. Nguyen v. U.S. is a good example of a constitutional violation and how destructive it can be. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/1-10873.ZS.html

    Held: The Ninth Circuit panel did not have the authority to decide petitioners’ appeals.

    Eventually, Obama’s naturalization records will become public and his ineligibility will be exposed. Every court order, holding, ruling or writ issued with an Obama appointed judge participating will be found to be without authority. Every law, rule, and regulation enacted into law by Obama pursuant to the Presentment Clause will be invalidated. Every action, contract, treaty or debt instrument issued by an Obama appointee will be invalidated.

    America will cease to exist. And the debt will be wiped clean.

  102. avatar
    Arthur B. February 16, 2015 at 8:58 pm #

    Arthur B.: Sven continues to advance his Parade of Horribles…

    Next round’s on me.

  103. avatar
    Northland10 February 16, 2015 at 9:03 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Eventually, Obama’s naturalization records will become public and his ineligibility will be exposed.

    If they are not public, how do you know about them? Are you withholding evidence of criminal wrongdoing? By this act, are you not aiding and abetting the “dismantling of the Constitution?”

  104. avatar
    Keith February 16, 2015 at 11:21 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Now that I’m back from croquet and I’m still P-O’d because my wife beat me, I’ll complete my thoughts on Sven’s latest nonsense…

    Article V

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

    No where in that Amendment process does the President, whether legitimate or not, have any role what-so-ever? Of course the President could suggest an amendment to Congress, but it is the Congress that must propose the amendment to the states, and it is the States that must ratify the amendment.

    Suppose the President suggested that Congress propose the following amendment:

    Amendment The Last.

    Section 1. The eligibility or ineligibility of a Candidate for the Office of the President of the United States must be determined by the House of Representatives and the Senate sitting as a ‘Committee of the Whole’.

    Section 2. The House of Representatives is dissolved and all duties and privileges defined elsewhere in this Constitution shall devolve onto the President.

    Section 3. The duties and privileges of the Senate defined elsewhere in this Constitution shall devolve onto the President.

    Section 4. Each State shall be fully responsible for the remuneration of its Senators, however, any States may choose to for-go its suffrage in the Senate for all time.

    Section 5. The Justices on the Supreme Court shall serve at the sole discretion of the President.

    Section 6. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is repealed.

    Section 7. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several Koch owned states; thereafter, no further amendments to the Constitution will be possible.

    That is all it would take Sven, to establish a ‘Constitutional Tyranny’. It could happen without a hint of violent coup or war abrogating the Constitution. It could happen whether or not the sitting President is actually eligible or not – because the process doesn’t have anything to do with the President.

  105. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 17, 2015 at 4:11 am #

    Keith: Now that I’m back from croquet and I’m still P-O’d because my wife beat me, I’ll complete my thoughts on Sven’s latest nonsense…

    No where in that Amendment process does the President, whether legitimate or not, have any role what-so-ever? Of course the President could suggest an amendment to Congress, but it is the Congress that must propose the amendment to the states, and it is the States that must ratify the amendment.

    Suppose the President suggested that Congress propose the following amendment:

    That is all it would take Sven, to establish a ‘Constitutional Tyranny’. It could happen without a hint of violent coup or war abrogating the Constitution. It could happen whether or not the sitting President is actually eligible or not – because the process doesn’t have anything to do with the President.


    Of 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution, only 27 amendments have passed

    By Will Short Gorham on Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 at 11:38 a.m.

    At a press briefing about the debt limit negotiations, Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., criticized a Republican push for a balanced budget amendment. He said Congress should not be hasty about amending the Constitution and noted that only a tiny number of amendments ultimately pass.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/30/xavier-becerra/11000-attempts-amend-us-constitution-only-27-amend/

    It is unlikely the Constitution will be amended as America’s debt continues it’s death spiral.

    A more efficient way to dismantle the Constitutional republic and eliminate the debt in a bipartisan manner is to elect an ineligible President. As I mentioned, President Bush’s AG, Michael Mukasey, former Chief Judge of the USDC for the SDNY, cancelled Obama’s certificate of naturalization a few months prior to a national election in 2008. Prior to the cancellation of Obama’s certificate of naturalization, Obama’s certificate of loss of nationality was cancelled by an assistant Secretary of State that I have not named publicly. It was the first time in the history of the United States an assistant Secretary of State has cancelled a certificate of loss of nationality pursuant to federal rules commonly referred to in the Betancourt Letter. The Betancourt Letter is the State Department’s doctrine for cancelling a US citizen’s citizenship as prescibed in the Federal Register, as amended in 2008. Later, the US Circuit Court for the District of Columbia found the rules prescribed in the Betancourt Letter as arbitrary and capricious.

    Undeterred, executive level federal officers affiliated with Republicans and Democrats have instituted a plan to dismantle the Constitutional republic by installing an ineligible President because its too difficult to amend the Constitution. America 2.0 will have a new founding document and old America will be left to service the debt.

  106. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 17, 2015 at 4:21 am #

    Northland10: If they are not public, how do you know about them?Are you withholding evidence of criminal wrongdoing?By this act, are you not aiding and abetting the “dismantling of the Constitution?”

    I have fully disclosed everything I know to be true to FBI Director James B. Comey in a sworn statement. Instead of berating me because Director Comey has not filed charges, shouldn’t you pressure Director Comey to file charges? Have you filed an FOIA request with Director Comey? Have you contacted your Congressional Representative and US Senators in your state to ask Director Comey why he has not filed charges or responded to the allegations the President of the United States is ineligible because he naturalized in 1983.

    Before Director Comey was appointed by Obama to the position of FBI Director, he was appointed by President Bush as Assistant Attorney General. Are you one of those people who believe Republicans and Democrats would never collude with each other to violate the Constitution?

  107. avatar
    bovril February 17, 2015 at 5:53 am #

    Svennie, deflection reflects poorly on you

    YOU are the one with fantastical claims about naturalization records

    I am the one who has laid out EXACTLY what you need to do to move your imaginary nonsense to ACTUAL facts

    WHY have you refused to support your garbage with easily accessible, publicly accessible, prima facie records..?

  108. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 17, 2015 at 6:10 am #

    Svenski, once again you prove your status as the village idiot and serial liar. You may have made sworn statements to any number of people, but they were all exercises in perjury for the simple reason you have no proof of any of your fantasies. Which makes them just so many more fantasies with no basis in reality and no validity in the real world.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 17, 2015 at 7:02 am #

    Yeah I’m sure Sven made a sworn statement to the fbi director just as Nancy turned herself over to congress for arrest all from their double wides.

  110. avatar
    John Reilly February 17, 2015 at 9:03 am #

    So, Sven, give Dr. C a copy of your sworn statement.

  111. avatar
    gorefan February 17, 2015 at 9:42 am #

    “I have fully disclosed everything I know to be true to FBI Director James B. Comey ”

    In my sworn statement to FBI Director Comey, I pointed out how the red arrow pointing to a “Y” on your blog page mysteriously disappeared after it was shown to you.

    He especially like your statement – “What photo with a red arrow pointing to a “Y”?”

  112. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 17, 2015 at 10:24 am #

    I’m sure he could use a good laugh.

    John Reilly:
    So, Sven, give Dr. C a copy of your sworn statement.

  113. avatar
    Lupin February 17, 2015 at 12:34 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Have you contacted your Congressional Representative and US Senators in your state to ask Director Comey why he has not filed charges or responded to the allegations the President of the United States is ineligible because he naturalized in 1983.

    How could he be naturalized in 1983 when we know for a fact that he was traveling abroad in 1981 with a US passport.

    I have asked you this umpteenth times here but you have never responded.

    You are either a liar or a fool — likely both.

  114. avatar
    Rickey February 17, 2015 at 1:04 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Have you contacted your Congressional Representative and US Senators in your state to ask Director Comey why he has not filed charges or responded to the allegations the President of the United States is ineligible because he naturalized in 1983.

    Actually I discussed that with my Congressman, Sean Maloney, who got back to me later and told me that Obama was not naturalized in 1983 or at any other time. As he explained, Obama could not have been naturalized because it was impossible for him to lose the US. citizenship that he acquired at birth. He was too young to renounce his U.S. citizenship when he lived in Indonesia, and even if he had been adopted by Lolo Soetoro it would have had no effect upon his U.S. citizenship.

    Your entire argument is a mere house of cards.

  115. avatar
    Keith February 17, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Of 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution, only 27 amendments have passed

    The Congress has proposed 11,000 amendments? Really? I doubt that seriously. And you quote that number as an argument that the process is too difficult? Or that some mythical President who is actually ‘ineligible’ can do something that an ‘eligible’ President cannot? Is there a point to your argument?

    In fact there are only SIX proposed amendments that have not been ratified. Four of those did not have ratification expiration dates and therefore still remain ‘open’.

    The Failed Amendments

    Notice this page does not count every time some drunk declares at a party that he wrote to his Congressman that we need a “free beer on Tuesdays” amendment as an attempt to amend the Constitution.

    One of the failed amendments was trying to entrench slavery for once and for all. This was actually proposed by Congress to the States. Than goodness the ratification process is not so trivial.

    An attempt to amend the Constitution is when CONGRESS proposes an Amendment to the States (yes there is another path, but it has never been used). Proposals that do not pass Congress, even very serious proposals, are not really attempts.

    11,000 attempts? Considering that 2015 is the 114th Congress that is 96 attempts per Congress. Do they even take 96 votes in any given Congress? And how many of those 11,000 attempts were backed by our current President whom you claim is actually ineligible? How many successful ‘attempts’ have there been during this President’s administration? In what way is it easier for this, supposedly ‘ineligible’ President to amend the Constitution?

    Well anyway, the Amendment process is difficult for a purpose – if it was easy to amend the Constitution you might as well not have a Constitution. The 27 amendments that have passed are important (excepting the 18th and the 21st, of course) and were able to pass the hurdle imposed. Of the 11,000 ‘attempts’ you cite, how many of them were important and ‘fixed’ a well recognized Constitutional problem in a well thought out way?

    This is the state of affairs in the State of Victoria in Australia, for example. The so-called Victorian “Constitution” is the “Constitution Act of 1975”; it is ‘just’ another act of the State Parliament, which is of course defined in the act itself. State Parliament can amend it at any time, though some provisions require special criteria to be amended. The Constitution Act refers to other non-Constitutional legislation internally. The thing is, from a fundamental “rules of engagement” point of view, a “dogs breakfast” (IMHO).

  116. avatar
    Keith February 17, 2015 at 9:15 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Have you contacted your Congressional Representative and US Senators in your state to ask Director Comey why he has not filed charges or responded to the allegations the President of the United States is ineligible because he naturalized in 1983.

    One doesn’t need to ask. One knows that charges will not be filed for allegations that have no substance.

    And one certainly doesn’t demand that allegations by third parties be investigated when one doesn’t have a clue about the substantiveness of the allegations.

    If you have the substance required to indicate that there is something worth investigating and Director Comey is ignoring you, one possible way to advance your quest is to tell everyone what that substance is; show the paperwork that demonstrates the immigration hoops that Obama is hiding; show the naturalization/ cancellation of naturalization/etc that you insist exists. Make it public – on the internet – where it cannot be ‘lost’.

    If it is compelling, the media will pick it up, and public pressure will be applied to Director Comey and everyone else. If it is not compelling, then of course it will be ignored, but that is where you are now anyway, so what have you got to lose?

    Comey is ignoring you, so lets see your stuff, Sven.

    Put up or shut up.

  117. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 18, 2015 at 12:54 am #

    Rickey: Actually I discussed that with my Congressman, Sean Maloney, who got back to me later and told me that Obama was not naturalized in 1983 or at any other time. As he explained, Obama could not have been naturalized because it was impossible for him to lose the US. citizenship that he acquired at birth. He was too young to renounce his U.S. citizenship when he lived in Indonesia, and even if he had been adopted by Lolo Soetoro it would have had no effect upon his U.S. citizenship.

    Your entire argument is a mere house of cards.

    Actually, it a case or controversy for the court to make a decision based on the merits of the allegations after discovery has been completed. Discovery will show Obama’s CLN was cancelled in June 2008 and Obama’s certificate of naturalization was cancelled administratively by DoJ shortly after that.

    At trial, I’m sure the defense will explain to the court that Perkins v. Elg controls and US children who have moved out of the US and naturalized in foreign state in 1967 could not be issued a CLN 1968 under any circumstance. Consequently, Obama’s CLN was issued in error and had to be cancelled in 2008, shortly before he was to be nominated by the Democrat Party to be their candidate in the upcoming national election for the Office of the President of the United States. It was cancelled under federal rules commonly referred to as the “Betancourt Letter.” The Betancourt letter outlines the State Department’s official position on the amended rules published in the Federal Register for the issuance and cancellation of CLNs in 2008.

    If the court allowed a rebuttal, I’m sure Fox v. Clinton, 2012 would be discussed. The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia found the State Department’s interpretation of the INA, Section 1, as amended, was arbitrary and capricious. And it will distinguish the fact that Elg was issued a US passport to return to the United States, lived in the US as a US citizen for several years, and then was told she could not be issued a US passport because she renounced her US citizenship as a child. In contrast, Obama returned to the US in 1971 as an Indonesian National, lived in the US as a permanent resident alien from 1971 to 1983 and refused to recapture his US citizenship at or near his 18th birthday to continue living as a permanent resident alien in the US.

    Further, I’m sure the defense would proclaim Obama’s certificate of naturalization issued to him in 1983 was cancelled for good cause by the DoJ, thus it never existed.

    If the court allowed discovery and a rebuttal, Obama’s petition for a certificate of naturalization filed with USDC Central District of California, 1983, and his notice of intent to naturalize as a US citizen, 1981, USDC Central District of California, would be entered into the record as evidence Obama did naturalize in 1983. The DoJ is not constitutionally authorized to cancel a court order issued in 1983 declaring Obama to be a naturalized US citizen upon completion of a loyalty oath. Obama certificate was cancelled, but his naturalization status was not.

    Case and controversies should be resolved in the court. After I notified FBI Director Comey Obama was a naturalized citizen, the FBI interviewed Obama about the allegation. I have it on good authority that Obama admitted that he naturalized in 1983. If a court were to allow Obama to be deposed, then Obama would admit he naturalized in 1983 or not allow himself to be deposed. Refusing a deposition is an admission of the allegation as fact.

  118. avatar
    Suranis February 18, 2015 at 1:04 am #

    Well, you sure as hell haven’t.

    SvenMagnussen: Discovery will show Obama’s CLN was cancelled in June 2008 and Obama’s certificate of naturalization was cancelled administratively by DoJ shortly after that.

  119. avatar
    Lupin February 18, 2015 at 1:15 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Further, I’m sure the defense would proclaim Obama’s certificate of naturalization issued to him in 1983 was cancelled for good cause by the DoJ, thus it never existed.

    Still not answering.my question:

    How could Obama travel to Europe in 1981 with a US passport if according to you he was naturalized only in 1983?

    Doc: there is a point beyond which Sven should not be allowed to post and repost what is basically the same statement without answering legitimate questions like mine.

  120. avatar
    gorefan February 18, 2015 at 1:42 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Actually

    Will this story go the way of the red arrow pointing to the “Y”?

  121. avatar
    Bovril February 18, 2015 at 6:32 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If the court allowed discovery and a rebuttal, Obama’s petition for a certificate of naturalization filed with USDC Central District of California, 1983, and his notice of intent to naturalize as a US citizen, 1981, USDC Central District of California, would be entered into the record as evidence Obama did naturalize in 1983.

    Discovery, the hobgoblin of the fervid Birfoon mind.

    You don’t need no stinking discovery Svennie as, and I will do this in capitals so you can grasp….

    ANY SUCH NATURALIZATION AND CANCELLATION OF NATURALIZATION DOCUMENTS ARE A PUBLIC RECORD AND DO NOT NEED “DISCOVERY”.

    These documents are there for you to get a copy of and ram down the throat of every wicked Obot in the world, so off you trot and feel that frisson of happiness when you get a copy and post it for the world to see.

    Oh, that presupposes of course that you believe your nonsensical tales of Barry and the Pirates and are not yet another sad and ineffectual troll.

  122. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 18, 2015 at 7:30 am #

    Bovril: Discovery, the hobgoblin of the fervid Birfoon mind.

    You don’t need no stinking discovery Svennie as, and I will do this in capitals so you can grasp….

    ANY SUCH NATURALIZATION AND CANCELLATION OF NATURALIZATION DOCUMENTS ARE A PUBLIC RECORD AND DO NOT NEED “DISCOVERY”.

    These documents are there for you to get a copy of and ram down the throat of every wicked Obot in the world, so off you trot and feel that frisson of happiness when you get a copy and post it for the world to see.

    Oh, that presupposes of course that you believe your nonsensical tales of Barry and the Pirates and are not yet another sad and ineffectual troll.

    You don’t understand the doctrine of “chain of custody.”

    The USDC will only consider primary sources, i.e. Obama’s cancelled CLN must be obtained from an executive level US federal officer authorized to control cancelled CLNs. A copy from me will be ignored by court unless Obama and the US State Department deny a cancelled CLN for Obama or Barry Soetoro exists or cannot be found.

    Secondary sourced evidence, such as a copy of the cancelled CLN, will only be considered by the court in rebuttal to Obama’s denial the document exists. Rebuttal witnesses and evidence are not identified until they are called to trial. Obama supporters are demanding rebuttal evidence be made public to spoil it before any rebuttal can be presented. Further, it allows the defense to get a lead on the rebuttal witness to threaten, harass or intimidate.

    That’s why many people believe Orly Taitz works for Obama. Her primary goal is to present rebuttal evidence and witnesses publicly before they can be presented as a rebuttal in a trial. Orly knows that any evidence presented with a complaint is ignored by the court because it is not prudent for the court to consider evidence that hasn’t been obtained from primary sources through the discovery process.

    Further, the case and controversy are not resolve before trial. Lupin insists Obama utilized a US passport in 1981 and I have yet to disprove the allegation. It’s not my job to disprove it. After discovery, evidence proving Obama naturalized in 1983 is presented to a judge and jury. You and Lupin present your case that Obama used a US passport in 1981 and argue Obama could not have naturalized in 1983. A jury decides which argument has merit. I’m not required to disprove anything you or Lupin present.

  123. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 18, 2015 at 7:45 am #

    Keith: One doesn’t need to ask. One knows that charges will not be filed for allegations that have no substance.

    And one certainly doesn’t demand that allegations by third parties be investigated when one doesn’t have a clue about the substantiveness of the allegations.

    If you have the substance required to indicate that there is something worth investigating and Director Comey is ignoring you, one possible way to advance your quest is to tell everyone what that substance is; show the paperwork that demonstrates the immigration hoops that Obama is hiding; show the naturalization/ cancellation of naturalization/etc that you insist exists. Make it public – on the internet – where it cannot be ‘lost’.

    If it is compelling, the media will pick it up, and public pressure will be applied to Director Comey and everyone else. If it is not compelling, then of course it will be ignored, but that is where you are now anyway, so what have you got to lose?

    Comey is ignoring you, so lets see your stuff, Sven.

    Put up or shut up.

    Comey hasn’t responded in a time frame that I feel is appropriate. In addition to my allegation Obama naturalized in 1983 and is ineligible, I notified Comey I objected to appointments of US federal officers as a violation of the Appointments Clause. Comey was appointed by Obama.

    Comey may be lobbying for an independent counsel or he may be sitting on the evidence gathered during the FBI’s investigation to protect his personal interests until Obama’s term ends. Either way, there is no statute of limitations on violations of the US Constitution. I certainly don’t want to publicly expose the evidence I have so Obots can spoil it from future use.

  124. avatar
    John Reilly February 18, 2015 at 10:31 am #

    Let’s see. There are documents, filed in a very specific court, evidencing what Sven says. But if he does not give copies of the documents to Doc (or, indeed, anyone else), then they will remain secret because while Pres. Obama is smart enough to become president while being a naturalized citizen, he is not smart enough to ask one of his attorneys to go to Los Angeles and get a copy of the document.

  125. avatar
    John Reilly February 18, 2015 at 10:33 am #

    And we’ve learned that Mr. Comey has done nothing within Sven’s time frame, but Sven, sitting on evidence of the crime of the century, won’t publicize it.

  126. avatar
    John Reilly February 18, 2015 at 10:36 am #

    And Sven envisions that the dispute will be tried to a jury, but I have yet to hear from Sven who he thinks will be the plaintiff and what the controversy between that plaintiff and Pres. Obama is. Does Sven think that every citizen has the right to their own trial? Would it be enough if we simply delivered certified copies of every document to every citizen?

  127. avatar
    Bovril February 18, 2015 at 11:15 am #

    Sven,

    Your response is about as fact free as they come

    “Chain of custody” has exactly zero relevance to official government records maintained in an official governmnet repoitory managed and controlled by an official government entity…Or are you going to say that every FOIA response, which has no “chain of custody” is invalid..?

    You go where you have been told, request the documents and if they exist and are turned over to you and submit them to an official, court or newspaper AT WORST they court would request verification from the custodians of record.

    Which is rather unlikely as I already showed via link to images that said naturalization records when provided come signed, sealed and everything which completely bypasses your nonsense and they therefore stand as prima facie records. You know, JUST LIKE OBAMA’s BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    Care to try again Sven..?

  128. avatar
    Bovril February 18, 2015 at 11:23 am #

    Just in case you try and blather

    Here is an example by, of all people, a Birfoon, Pixel Patriot who did EXACTLY what I have told you and did the exact search for Marco Rubio’s fathers certicate

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62055196/Rubio-Naturalization-Petition-CERTIFIED-from-National-Archives

    Oh and look, signed, sealed prima facie record…what was that about “chain of custody”..?

  129. avatar
    Lupin February 18, 2015 at 11:27 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Further, the case and controversy are not resolve before trial. Lupin insists Obama utilized a US passport in 1981 and I have yet to disprove the allegation. It’s not my job to disprove it. After discovery, evidence proving Obama naturalized in 1983 is presented to a judge and jury. You and Lupin present your case that Obama used a US passport in 1981 and argue Obama could not have naturalized in 1983. A jury decides which argument has merit. I’m not required to disprove anything you or Lupin present.

    Yes, you are. The burden is wholly upon you.

    We have prima facie evidence, from multiple sources, including French sources, that Obama traveled to France in the summer of 1981. No one need to “prove” this since it’s part of the established record. (No one has ever challenged it either.)

    In order to be let in, Obama needed a passport. Now we have circumstantial evidence that he used a US passport to enter Europe because had he used an Indonesian passport (as some claimed) he would have needed a visa.

    Such a visa could only be granted by a French Embassy or Consulate in Indonesia. And we know that Obama did not travel to Indonesia at that time. Such visas are only good for 3 or 6 months, depending, so all that is relatively easy to ascertain.

    That only leaves a US passport as the remaining option to explain how he as able to enter Europe.

    Now, you’re the one claiming based on dubious evidence that Obama was naturalized in 1983. Yet all the facts point out to him having a US passport in 1981.

    Either you change you theory to adapt it to known facts, or you’re a liar, it’s that’s simple.

  130. avatar
    John Reilly February 18, 2015 at 11:42 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If the court allowed discovery and a rebuttal, Obama’s petition for a certificate of naturalization filed with USDC Central District of California, 1983, and his notice of intent to naturalize as a US citizen, 1981, USDC Central District of California, would be entered into the record as evidence Obama did naturalize in 1983. The DoJ is not constitutionally authorized to cancel a court order issued in 1983 declaring Obama to be a naturalized US citizen upon completion of a loyalty oath. Obama certificate was cancelled, but his naturalization status was not.

    Sven: here is the link to ordering the documents you say exist in the USDC Central District of California.

    http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/Records

    If I were you, I’d order a certified copy a soon as possible.

  131. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 18, 2015 at 3:06 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: If

    Your arguments always hinge on either some random crap you pulled out of your ass, you misusing/misreading some random court decision, or the word “if”. In the context you use it, “if” is almost always followed by some wishful thinking.

  132. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 18, 2015 at 3:11 pm #

    John Reilly: Would it be enough if we simply delivered certified copies of every document to every citizen?

    If it’s an issue that the Birthers care about, and you had delivered 201 certified copies to each of the nearly 300 million US Citizens, Birthers would claim they all were forgeries AND insist, even if they were all found to be legitimate, that EVERYBODY NEW that 202 certified copies sent to each citizen, would be required, but it’s too late to send them now, and golly you wouldn’t believe what Trump’s investigators are finding out in Hawaii – all covered with a thin candy shell.

  133. avatar
    Keith February 18, 2015 at 8:27 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Comey hasn’t responded in a time frame that I feel is appropriate.

    So light a fire under him (metaphorically speaking) to get him moving.

    Publish your information – make it politically and morally impossible for him to continue to stonewall you like this. How dare he ignore you when you have the EVIDENCE to bring down the most powerful man in the world as an imposter?

    The solution is simple Sven: put up or shut up!

    P.S. Did you ever get around to publishing the evidence you had about Obama being adopted by Connecticut nuns or whatever it was? I must have missed it.

  134. avatar
    bgansel9 February 18, 2015 at 8:32 pm #

    Keith: P.S. Did you ever get around to publishing the evidence you had about Obama being adopted by Connecticut nuns or whatever it was? I must have missed it.

    I’ve gotta say, the hilarity on this site never grows stale.

  135. avatar
    Keith February 18, 2015 at 8:33 pm #

    Lupin: We have prima facie evidence

    For Sven’s benefit (he has trouble with plain Latin sometimes):

    pri·ma fa·ci·e
    ˌprīmə ˈfāSHē/
    adjective & adverb

    Law
    adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie

    based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
    “a prima facie case of professional misconduct”

    That is what a Birth Certificate is: accepted as correct until proved otherwise.

    If you (Sven) have PROOF that the Birth Certificate is incorrect, then the solution is simple:

    Put up or shut up.

  136. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 18, 2015 at 8:36 pm #

    John Reilly: Sven:here is the link to ordering the documents you say exist in the USDC Central District of California.

    http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/Records

    If I were you, I’d order a certified copy a soon as possible.

    Obama’s notice of intent, 1981, and petition for naturalization as a US citizen, 1983, are more than 25 years old. They’ve been transferred to NARA, Riverside, CA. The court records are under the control of the Archivist of the United States, another appointee of Obama.

    Like FBI Director Comey, the Archivist of the United States is liable for supporting the dismantling of the US Constitution. It is unreasonable to assume the Archivist of the United States will incriminate themselves without a court ordered subpoena. If a court order were obtained and the Archivist of the United States said they cannot find the courts records or the court records never existed, then I know of a rebuttal witness that can be identified and called to testify as a rebuttal witness.

    Rebuttal witnesses and rebuttal evidence or secondary evidence are not identified until the day of testimony. The Plaintiff notifies the court and the Defendants a rebuttal witness will be called to testify and secondary evidence will be offered to the court. Defendants are not allowed to depose the witness or examine the evidence for rebuttal until the rebuttal witness testifies.

    It would be easier to subpoena the DoJ to obtain the records created and maintained to cancel Obama’s certificate of naturalization. I could publicly identify the witness who will testify the DoJ cancelled Obama’s certificate of naturalization, but I’m concerned that witness would disappear or be threatened.

  137. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 18, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

    Keith: For Sven’s benefit (he has trouble with plain Latin sometimes):

    That is what a Birth Certificate is: accepted as correct until proved otherwise.

    If you (Sven) have PROOF that the Birth Certificate is incorrect, then the solution is simple:

    Put up or shut up.

    We also have the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. US laws enacted to create and maintain naturalization records supersede the laws of the various states to create and maintain birth records.

    A birth certificate issued by a state pursuant to state law cannot be used to supersede a naturalization record of the same person. Regardless of his place of birth, Obama filed a notice of intent with the USDC for the Central District of California in 1981. In 1983, his petition for naturalization as a US citizen was granted in the same court. The court would not have granted Obama’s petition for naturalization if he were a US citizen at the time of petition.

    Records created, maintained and amended pursuant to the State of Hawaii annotated code cannot supersede a US federal court order for Obama to naturalize as a US citizen.

  138. avatar
    bgansel9 February 18, 2015 at 8:50 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama’s notice of intent, 1981, and petition for naturalization as a US citizen, 1983, are more than 25 years old. They’ve been transferred to NARA, Riverside, CA.

    You do know that you can order copies of NARA records also? I’ve had to do so when I was a private investigator doing background checks. Just because they were sent to an archive center doesn’t mean they are no longer available at all.

  139. avatar
    bgansel9 February 18, 2015 at 8:58 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: have the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. US laws enacted to create and maintain naturalization records supersede the laws of the various states to create and maintain birth records.

    I am so glad that you acknowledge the Supremacy clause exists, but, I think you are a bit confused. The Supremacy clause talks about federal powers superseding state powers, but that doesn’t mean a birth certificate proving natural birth in America would take secondary position to a naturalization document. Also, Obama was a child when he went to Indonesia, and he did not vacate his American citizenship. Whatever naturalization paper you think you have, you don’t. Title VIII, Section 1401 states whom is a citizen of the United States. section (a) states anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Even if Obama was in Indonesia for a few years as a child, that does not vacate his American citizenship. Of course, I’m assuming you are talking about some semblance of Obama’s reality here and not some half-cocked fantasy of him being born in Vanuatu or some other wild scheme.

  140. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 18, 2015 at 8:59 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama’s notice of intent, 1981, and petition for naturalization as a US citizen, 1983, are more than 25 years old. They’ve been transferred to NARA, Riverside, CA. The court records are under the control of the Archivist of the United States, another appointee of Obama.

    Any proof to support this claim?

  141. avatar
    bgansel9 February 18, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Any proof to support this claim?

    He cited NARA because he thought that would get him off the hook for proof. LOL

  142. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 18, 2015 at 9:02 pm #

    bgansel9: You do know that you can order copies of NARA records also? I’ve had to do so when I was a private investigator doing background checks. Just because they were sent to an archive center doesn’t mean they are no longer available at all.

    As I’ve explained, I prefer to offer the evidence as a rebuttal after Obama denies he naturalized in 1983. Thank you for not requesting Obama’s records from NARA, Riverside, and then posting them on the net. It would help Obama and undermine my strategy. Thanks for your help.

  143. avatar
    bgansel9 February 18, 2015 at 9:05 pm #

    Here Sven, I’ll even point you to the form. – http://www.archives.gov/research/court-records/bankruptcy.html

  144. avatar
    bgansel9 February 18, 2015 at 9:06 pm #

    You’re fibbing.

  145. avatar
    Keith February 18, 2015 at 9:11 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: US laws enacted to create and maintain naturalization records supersede the laws of the various states to create and maintain birth records.

    Naturalization records have nothing to do with birth records.

    Put up or shut up.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 18, 2015 at 9:33 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: As I’ve explained, I prefer to offer the evidence as a rebuttal after Obama denies he naturalized in 1983. Thank you for not requesting Obama’s records from NARA, Riverside, and then posting them on the net. It would help Obama and undermine my strategy. Thanks for your help.

    Actually you don’t even prefer that since you’ve not offered any evidence. You’ve made claims which you always fail to back up. You were a lot more interesting when you were spinning the Barry and the Pirates fiction.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 18, 2015 at 9:34 pm #

    bgansel9: You do know that you can order copies of NARA records also?

    The amount of things he doesn’t know is enough to fill the grand canyon.

  148. avatar
    bgansel9 February 18, 2015 at 9:47 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: As I’ve explained, I prefer to offer the evidence as a rebuttal after Obama denies he naturalized in 1983. Thank you for not requesting Obama’s records from NARA, Riverside, and then posting them on the net. It would help Obama and undermine my strategy. Thanks for your help.

    You may believe in such fantasies, but, I assure you I am not helping you in anything. You might find a way to help yourself though, seek psychiatric evaluation. You need it.

  149. avatar
    bgansel9 February 18, 2015 at 9:49 pm #

    : Obama’s notice of intent, 1981, and petition for naturalization as a US citizen, 1983, are more than 25 years old. They’ve been transferred to NARA, Riverside, CA. The court records are under the control of the Archivist of the United States, another appointee of Obama.

    To have this information, you would need a case number. Cite the case number.

  150. avatar
    bgansel9 February 18, 2015 at 9:55 pm #

    By the way, Sven. You are obviously lying and you don’t even realize it. Citing that this case is “over 25 years old” and that’s why the case is in NARA? I dealt with cases that were less than 3-5 years old and they were in NARA also. Your imagination is not as opaque as you believe it is.

  151. avatar
    Rickey February 18, 2015 at 10:06 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Actually, it a case or controversy for the court to make a decision based on the merits of the allegations after discovery has been completed.

    Earth to Sven: The fact that you don’t like having a black president doesn’t constitute a controversy.

  152. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 19, 2015 at 12:16 am #

    SvenMagnussen: As I’ve explained, I prefer to offer the evidence as a rebuttal after Obama denies he naturalized in 1983. Thank you for not requesting Obama’s records from NARA, Riverside, and then posting them on the net. It would help Obama and undermine my strategy. Thanks for your help.

    Oh, Sven! We’ve gradually come to understand that your REAL strategy, is to tunnel through the center of the Earth starting at a location on the opposite side of the Globe from the White House, and emerge just in time to see something you can claim makes Obama ineligible to the Presidency, in his most recently worn pair of underpants.

    No one here is likely to sink low enough to undermine such strategies as yours!

  153. avatar
    John Reilly February 19, 2015 at 12:27 am #

    So let’s get this right.

    Remember, IANAL.

    Sven files his case, Sven v. Obama. His claim is PWB and being a naturalized citizen.

    He is not going to do any discovery because he’s told us that he intends to spring the President’s naturalization papers on him in rebuttal. If you do discovery, you’ve got to share with the other side.

    The President is called to the witness stand, He denies being naturalized. Sven goes, “Aha,” and springs the trap. That’s because while Pres. Obama is smart enough to get elected despite being Black, having a middle name of Hussein, having a Muslim Father, etc., he is not smart enough to beat our friend Sven.

    The Judge rules that Pres. Obama is ineligible and removes him from office. That means all the laws he signed are reversed. (Thanks, Sven, as my taxes go up, but it’s worth it.) All of the illegal aliens are rounded up and deported. Except for the ones from Scandinavia. Cause we like them. Black people are suitably discouraged and learn their place again.

    Do I have that right?

    Well, remember, IANAL.

    But Sven, you are an idiot.

    Doc, I didn’t even make 24 hours into Lent.

  154. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 19, 2015 at 2:00 am #

    Svenski, you are a birfoon, and a liar, and not even a good or inventive liar, just a pathetic incompetent little liar parading his ignorance for all to see, who can’t even keep his lies straight from one lie to the next.

    You are the one making the claims, it is your onus to provide proof of them, which of course you can’t, since none exists.

    You are still a pathetic, boring, liar, and did I forget to mention birfoon?

    So now your excuse is that the records have been moved to archives, big deal, they are still legal records, and if so required, the custodian of the records can and will certify them as being certified copies of the originals, which is all you’d get from the court if you ever bothered to request them, and as such they would stand as the originals as far as a court proceeding is concerned, so another lie.

    Thank you once again for playing, and allowing me the privilege of pointing out that you are a complete and utter idiot, birfoon, and fool, as well as an incompetent, inept, and serial liar.

  155. avatar
    Lupin February 19, 2015 at 3:04 am #

    Sven:

    I’m still waiting for your explanation on how Obama could have entered Europe in 1981 if he didn’t have a US passport.

    Your entire theory is pure rubbish if you don’t explain how he as able to travel to Europe BEFORE 1983.

  156. avatar
    Lupin February 19, 2015 at 3:07 am #

    Has any of you any idea why Sven just doesn’t amend his theory by a couple of years to fit the facts?

    His insistence on 1983 which is plainly and physically impossible seems odd to me.

    But then again, the man is a cretin.

  157. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 19, 2015 at 5:20 am #

    Well, just plain stupid pretty well fits the facts, that and lazy, and inept, and just generally an inept incompetent liar. Besides, he can’t remember what lies he’s told when, and per my previous remarks, too stupid/lazy/dishonest to keep track of them.

    As a side note, is there any way to check if a lawyer got a law degree from the Sorbonne?

  158. avatar
    Lupin February 19, 2015 at 6:14 am #

    Notorial Dissent: As a side note, is there any way to check if a lawyer got a law degree from the Sorbonne?

    To be a practicing attorney in France, you must first have a “Master” in Law (4 years) delivered by a Public University like the Sorbonne, then you must pass an entrance exam for a training course organized by the Ecole des Avocats (18 months), then pass yet another exam called CAPA. (Certificat d’Aptitude à la Profession d’Avocat)

    It is only after successfully completing this course that one can register with a bar and be admitted to appear before a court.

    If you don’t follow this cursus and stop at the Master, you can still be a Conseiller Juridique and go work for a corporation, but you are not entitled to call yourself an avocat.

    This is my case. I have a Master from the Sorbonne, but never chose to go to into the legal profession and instead joined the French bank Credit Lyonnais, and ended up the head of their legal dpt in Los Angeles.

    If you need to know more about various special cases, foreign lawyers, etc, check here:

    http://cnb.avocat.fr/Etre-avocat-en-France-Acces-a-la-profession-d-avocat_a1447.html

    Because French universities tend on the whole to be relatively equal in quality, there isn’t much difference between someone who got his Master from the Sorbonne (like myself) or any other university. There isn’t in France a premium on some universities like Harvard or Yale in the US.

    By the time a lawyer passes the CAPA, the university he or she originally attended would not be a major factor in hiring or recruiting him/her.

    I suppose one could check if someone actually studied at the Sorbonne and get a verification of any diploma they might have gotten by contacting the alumni organization at my alma mater:

    anciens@listes.paris-sorbonne.fr

    Fees may be involved! 🙂

    Or you could ask the person for a photocopy of her diploma. I once offered to send one to Doc here when Mario Apuzzo questioned my credentials.

  159. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 19, 2015 at 8:49 am #

    bgansel9: To have this information, you would need a case number. Cite the case number.

    Shouldn’t I wait until after Obama denies he naturalized in 1983 and for the defense counsel to claim I don’t know the case number? On cross-examination, I look at the jury and cite the case number.

    Or should I post the case number here and the Archivist of the US, an appointee of Obama, loses the file and begins renumbering case files? Isn’t that what the record’s administrator for the Hawaii DoH did for Obama’s BC?

    Rather than publicly posting and submitting Obama’s BC as a forgery to the court to accompany the complaint Obama was ineligible, shouldn’t the plaintiff have waited until Obama submitted the forgery as evidence and denied he was ineligible. Plaintiff could have informed the Court and Obama they have a rebuttal witness and will prove Obama’s BC is a forgery at trial after discovery has been completed?

  160. avatar
    bgansel9 February 19, 2015 at 8:58 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Shouldn’t I wait until after Obama denies he naturalized in 1983…

    Sure, if you want to have no credibility. You can’t claim something that you have no proof of, therefore, unless you want to cite a case number, you’re just blowing smoke (but we already know that’s exactly what you’re doing).

  161. avatar
    bgansel9 February 19, 2015 at 9:01 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Or should I post the case number here and the Archivist of the US, an appointee of Obama, loses the file and begins renumbering case files?

    Bwahahahahaha! Conspiracy Theory much? LMAO

    You have just proven you have NOTHING!

  162. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 19, 2015 at 9:34 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Shouldn’t I wait until after Obama denies he naturalized in 1983 and for the defense counsel to claim I don’t know the case number? On cross-examination, I look at the jury and cite the case number.

    You’ll never get that far with a made up claim such as a non-existent naturalization. I doubt the defense would even have to show up for your case to be tossed.

    SvenMagnussen: Or should I post the case number here and the Archivist of the US, an appointee of Obama, loses the file and begins renumbering case files? Isn’t that what the record’s administrator for the Hawaii DoH did for Obama’s BC?

    So what does someone supposedly losing your non-existent case have to do with us? Post the case number.

    SvenMagnussen: Rather than publicly posting and submitting Obama’s BC as a forgery to the court to accompany the complaint Obama was ineligible, shouldn’t the plaintiff have waited until Obama submitted the forgery as evidence and denied he was ineligible.

    Why would he have to submit anything since there is no evidence to support your claims.

  163. avatar
    bovril February 19, 2015 at 10:23 am #

    So do tell Svennie, have you EVER actually seen any document purporting to be either a naturalization or cancellation of naturalization certificate for Obama..?

    Simple, binary, YES/NO answer

    If YES, then you will have seen detail including the petition number, top right hand corner of said document, along with the necessary Alien Registration Number assigned to Obama, ’cause, no ARN, no naturalization

    You would also have seen the affidavit of witnesses so you will know who witnessed this

    Then you will have the actual certificate number

    So, what you do, is AS I HAVE SHOWN YOU HOW TO, totter of, to the repository of records, provide all this detail and one of two things will happen

    A. You get a certified and sealed copy of this mystical document, good in all courts as prima facie evidence of Obama being naturalized and get to lord it over all Obot for the rest of your life and be the man who gets Obama removed from office

    B. They turn around and say No Such Record

    With B you then get to tell the world that you have proof, not only of the event but of massive collusion and get to lord it over all Obot for the rest of your life and be the man who gets Obama removed from office

    This of course presupposes that you have seen said magical document and have said details.

    So look, Win-Win for Svennie, or not.

    So, off you trot we wait with bated breath

  164. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 19, 2015 at 10:43 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Shouldn’t I wait until after Obama denies he naturalized in 1983 and for the defense counsel to claim I don’t know the case number? On cross-examination, I look at the jury and cite the case number.

    You mean like I wait for the Trial Of The Century [tm] until I disclose to the jury my evidence that the Founders gave my family Perpetual Presidency For Life (R) in the secret Superconstitution, Article 2? But until then, I still demand you bow to me and sing Glory Be To His Name.

  165. avatar
    bgansel9 February 19, 2015 at 11:02 am #

    bovril: So, what you do, is AS I HAVE SHOWN YOU HOW TO, totter of, to the repository of records, provide all this detail and one of two things will happen

    They don’t accept personal on-site totterers anymore. He would have to request records online or through mail services. So, he wouldn’t even need to make a trip to Riverside.

  166. avatar
    Keith February 19, 2015 at 6:48 pm #

    Lupin: Or you could ask the person for a photocopy of her diploma. I once offered to send one to Doc here when Mario Apuzzo questioned my credentials.

    And you know the ruckus you would have started then… “is fake… is layers… is squirrels… Benghazi!”

  167. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 20, 2015 at 2:43 am #

    bovril:
    So do tell Svennie, have you EVER actually seen any document purporting to be either a naturalization or cancellation of naturalization certificate for Obama..?

    Simple, binary, YES/NO answer

    If YES, then you will have seen detail including the petition number, top right hand corner of said document, along with the necessary Alien RegistrationNumber assigned to Obama, ’cause, no ARN, no naturalization

    You would also have seen the affidavit of witnesses so you will know who witnessed this

    Then you will have the actual certificate number

    So, what you do, is AS I HAVE SHOWN YOU HOW TO, totter of, to the repository of records, provide all this detail and one of two things will happen

    A. You get a certified and sealed copy of this mystical document, good in all courts as prima facie evidence of Obama being naturalized and get to lord it over all Obot for the rest of your life and be the man who gets Obama removed from office

    B. They turn around and say No Such Record

    With B you then get to tell the world that you have proof, not only of the event but of massive collusion and get to lord it over all Obot for the rest of your life and be the man who gets Obama removed from office

    This of course presupposes that you have seen said magical document and have said details.

    So look, Win-Win for Svennie, or not.

    So, off you trot we wait with bated breath

    Or …

    C. An allegation is made that Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States and in violation of the Eligibility Clause. A federal judge hears the motion to dismiss and decides to allow discovery to begin.

    The plaintiff subpoenas Obama for a deposition. Obama agrees to be deposed under oath. Plaintiff asked Obama if he naturalized as a U.S citizen in Los Angeles, CA, 1983.

    Obama answers, “I was born in Hawaii.”

    Plaintiff asked the question again, “Did you naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1983?”

    Obama answers, “Yes.”

    Obama goes back to president’n while black to establish America 2.0 as the majority of American voters have demanded. That’s when it gets interesting. Will all US citizens automatically become citizens of America 2.0 or just some of them? We know old America will be left with the debt. We don’t know what assets Obama will usurp on behalf of America 2.0. Will all citizens and aliens in country automatically become citizens of America 2.0 or will Obama be selective?

  168. avatar
    Keith February 20, 2015 at 3:28 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama goes back to president’n while black to establish America 2.0

    Um, sorry, you must have missed the memos.

    We’ve been in America Version 3 since 1789. Current update level is 3.27

    Please do try to keep up.

  169. avatar
    Lupin February 20, 2015 at 3:53 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama goes back to president’n while black to establish America 2.0 as the majority of American voters have demanded. That’s when it gets interesting. Will all US citizens automatically become citizens of America 2.0 or just some of them? We know old America will be left with the debt. We don’t know what assets Obama will usurp on behalf of America 2.0. Will all citizens and aliens in country automatically become citizens of America 2.0 or will Obama be selective?

    I see now! You’re not just a liar, an imbecile, and an incompetent lawyer; you’re also a paranoid, delusional bigot.

    That certainly explains your puzzling inability to come to grips with reality.

  170. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 20, 2015 at 6:56 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Will all US citizens automatically become citizens of America 2.0 or just some of them? We know old America will be left with the debt. We don’t know what assets Obama will usurp on behalf of America 2.0.

    Actually you are describing a right-wing wingnut fantasy – that when they come to power, they could just throw off all old baggage (like the debt) and start over with a clean slate (and possibly also refuse citizenship in the new US to those who disagree with them).

    SvenMagnussen: C. An allegation is made that Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States and in violation of the Eligibility Clause. A federal judge hears the motion to dismiss and decides to allow discovery to begin.

    Is that your “one honest judge”? Because so far, no birther plaintiff has brought enough evidence to convince a judge discovery is in order (reminder for you alleged lawyer: fishing expeditions as in “I don’t have any evidence for my claims but if you allow discovery, we will surely find some” do not work).

    SvenMagnussen: Plaintiff asked the question again, “Did you naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1983?”

    Obama answers, “Yes.”

    When you love fantasy trials with made-up answers by your dream witnesses so much, you should join David Manning. He loves holding trials with hand-picked juries who convict absent defendants based on hearsay testimony from affidavits of absent hearsay witnesses who may not even exist.

  171. avatar
    bovril February 20, 2015 at 8:50 am #

    Svennie, you were asked a specific question

    , have you EVER actually seen any document purporting to be either a naturalization or cancellation of naturalization certificate for Obama..?

    Well..?

  172. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 20, 2015 at 10:43 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Once a violation of the Constitution occurs it cannot be retroactively fixed. All laws, rules, regulations and appointments signed into action by the ineligible President are voided after exposure of ineligibility.

    Courts have held under the de facto officer doctrine that acts and laws signed by persons acting in the capacity of their title are valid even if the person’s appointment or election to the office is legally deficient.

    The court in Hamilton v. Roehrich, 628 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Mn, 2009), articulated the rationale for this doctrine:

    The de facto officer doctrine “`confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.'” Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69, 77, 123 S.Ct. 2130, 156 L.Ed.2d 64 (2003), quoting Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 180, 115 S.Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136 (1995). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” Ryder v. United States, supra at 180, 115 S.Ct. 2031 [quotations and citations omitted]; see also, Hussey v. Smith, 99 U.S. 20, 24, 25 L.Ed. 314 (1878)(“The acts of such officers are held to be valid because the public good requires it,” and “[a] different rule would be a source of serious and lasting evils.”); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 650 F.2d 14, 17 (2nd Cir.1981)(“The de facto officer doctrine was developed to protect the public from the chaos and uncertainty that would ensue if actions taken by individuals apparently occupying government offices could later be invalidated by exposing defects in the officials’ titles.”). “The doctrine has generally been applied to individuals who are in possession of an office, are performing the duties of the office, and who maintain an appearance of right to the office.” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., supra at 17, citing Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302, 323, 22 S.Ct. 327, 46 L.Ed. 552 (1902)

    The Supreme Court in Ryder v. United States , 515 U.S. 177 (1995 stated:

    ” [In] Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), [ ] plaintiffs challenged the appointment of the Federal Election Commission members on separation of powers grounds. The Court agreed with them and held that the appointment of four members of the Commission by Congress, rather than the President, violated the Appointments Clause. It nonetheless quite summarily held that the “past acts of the Commission are therefore accorded de facto validity.” Id., at 142. We cited as authority for this determination Connor v. Williams, 404 U.S. 549, 550-551 (1972), in which we held that legislative acts performed by legislators held to have been elected in accordance with an unconstitutional apportionment were not therefore void.”

    As such, all of Obama’s appointments and acts that he signed into law including the Health Care Bill are valid.

  173. avatar
    bgansel9 February 20, 2015 at 10:50 am #

    SvenMagnussen: C. An allegation is made that Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States and in violation of the Eligibility Clause. A federal judge hears the motion to dismiss and decides to allow discovery to begin.

    IANAL, but it is my understanding that discovery is not granted during hearings on Motions to Dismiss. True or False? Other legal experts here have an answer to this?

    The plaintiff subpoenas Obama for a deposition. Obama agrees to be deposed under oath. Plaintiff asked Obama if he naturalized as a U.S citizen in Los Angeles, CA, 1983.

    Obama answers, “I was born in Hawaii.”

    Plaintiff asked the question again, “Did you naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1983?”

    Obama answers, “Yes.”

    In 1983, Obama was 22-23 years old. When do you believe he would have forfeited his citizenship, since if he was born in Hawaii, he would have been a U.S. Citizen by birth, automatically (see the Fourteenth Amendment, And U.S. Code, Title VIII, Section 1401 (a))?

    If you say he forfeited his citizenship prior to the age of 18, you would need to demonstrate that he satisfied the authorities that he was fully cognizant of his desire to no longer be a U.S. Citizen (rare and rarely granted).

    Citizens who are minority children cannot forfeit their citizenship prior to the age of majority without satisfying a special interview that seeks to determine if the child is fully cognizant of his/her rights. Most children cannot satisfy that requirement. Also, since Dual citizenship is allowed by Americans, why would he want to?

    You have to prove he did. Without forfeiting citizenship prior to naturalization, Obama would have been an American citizen. You are taking a long route to get to nowhere.

  174. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 20, 2015 at 10:51 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I have fully disclosed everything I know to be true to FBI Director James B. Comey in a sworn statement. Instead of berating me because Director Comey has not filed charges, shouldn’t you pressure Director Comey to file charges? Have you filed an FOIA request with Director Comey? Have you contacted your Congressional Representative and US Senators in your state to ask Director Comey why he has not filed charges or responded to the allegations the President of the United States is ineligible because he naturalized in 1983.

    Before Director Comey was appointed by Obama to the position of FBI Director, he was appointed by President Bush as Assistant Attorney General. Are you one of those people who believe Republicans and Democrats would never collude with each other to violate the Constitution?

    Sven’s theory is that Obama, being a minor, somehow managed to renounce his United States citizen when he moved to Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian step father. However, that theory has problems since the language in 8 U.S.C. 1481, the statute that governs renunciation of United States citizens, requires the person to “voluntarily perform” with the “intention of relinquishing United States nationality.”

    Sven would have to claim that a CHILD under the age of ten (being the age that Obama left Indonesia to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents) had the necessary mental capacity to understand that he was relinquishing his United States citizenship. Here in the United States, we legally protect minors in contract law, by not permitting them to sign contracts is so as to protect the minor from their lack of maturity.

    As such, the question is presented: If under contract law, Obama being a minor was unable to sign a contract then how could it be possible that he would have the maturity to relinquished his United States citizenship?

    It bears repeating over and over again.

    A child born in the United States does not lose his or her U.S. citizenship by moving to another country. Moreover if the other country does not recognize dual citizenship then the child’s place of birth will be his or her sole citizenship.

    The other country’s nationalization laws do not pre-empt United States citizenship laws regarding its citizens; in other words, a foreign country’s nationalization laws does not strip a United States citizen of his or her citizenship.

    The only way a United States citizen can have his citizenship revoke is by doing any of the proscribed acts listed in 8 U.S.C. 1481. These proscribed acts required the United States citizens to have attained the age of eighteen or committed an act of treason and being convicted of treason.

    In this case, Obama being under the age of EIGHTEEN and having not been accused and tried for treason against the United States while he was living in Indonesia did not lose his United States citizenship.

    What Sven fails to understand is that the only way a natural born or naturalized citizen can have his or her United States citizenship revoked is by the citizen doing any one of the proscribed acts listed in 8 U.S.C. 1481. If they took the time to read this statute they will realize that a MINOR can’t renounced his or her United States citizenship because those acts required either the citizen have attained the AGE OF EIGHTEEN or have been tried and convicted for TREASON. Since Obama had neither attained the age of eighteen nor was he tried and convicted of TREASON.

    Sven would have to claim that a CHILD under the age of ten (being the age that Obama left Indonesia to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents) had the necessary mental capacity to understand that he was relinquishing his United States citizenship. Here in the United States, we legally protect minors in contract law, by not permitting them to sign contracts is so as to protect the minor from their lack of maturity.

    As such, the question is presented: If under contract law, Obama being a minor was unable to sign a contract then how could it be possible that he would have the maturity to relinquish his United States citizenship?

  175. avatar
    bgansel9 February 20, 2015 at 11:01 am #

    Atticus Finch: Sven’s theory is that Obama, being a minor, somehow managed to renounce his United States citizen when he moved to Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian step father. However, that theory has problems since the language in 8 U.S.C. 1481, the statute that governs renunciation of United States citizens, requires the person to “voluntarily perform” with the “intention of relinquishing United States nationality.”

    Sven would have to claim that a CHILD under the age of ten (being the age that Obama left Indonesia to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents) had the necessary mental capacity to understand that he was relinquishing his United States citizenship.Here in the United States, we legally protect minors in contract law, by not permitting them to sign contracts is so as to protect the minor from their lack of maturity…

    Thanks Atticus, I said pretty much the same thing. 🙂

  176. avatar
    Jim February 20, 2015 at 11:17 am #

    Poor Sven…birtherism has fallen so flat all he’s left with is posting his fantasies on an anti-birther site. That’s REALLY pathetic Sven.

  177. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 20, 2015 at 1:35 pm #

    bgansel9: IANAL, but it is my understanding that discovery is not granted during hearings on Motions to Dismiss. True or False? Other legal experts here have an answer to this?

    Ok, I’ll play. True. Roughly, if a motion to dismiss is denied, the defendant then files an Answer to the complaint (denying the allegation of naturalization, and demanding proof). Likely, the defendant will simultaneously file a motion for summary judgment (demanding judgment on the merits), with an affidavit from the government attached thereto averring there was no naturalization. Then, Sven would have to file a response to the motion for summary judgment–with Sven’s “evidence” (to contradict the affidavit) attached thereto. Having no evidence, Sven loses on the merits. All this, before discovery. No trial.

  178. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 20, 2015 at 1:44 pm #

    Jim:
    Poor Sven…birtherism has fallen so flat all he’s left with is posting his fantasies on an anti-birther site.That’s REALLY pathetic Sven.

    You’d think that by now, he’d know he can’t win, or convert anyone.

  179. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 20, 2015 at 2:34 pm #

    Atticus Finch: Sven’s theory is that Obama, being a minor, somehow managed to renounce his United States citizen when he moved to Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian step father. However, that theory has problems since the language in 8 U.S.C. 1481, the statute that governs renunciation of United States citizens, requires the person to “voluntarily perform” with the “intention of relinquishing United States nationality.”

    Sven would have to claim that a CHILD under the age of ten (being the age that Obama left Indonesia to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents) had the necessary mental capacity to understand that he was relinquishing his United States citizenship.Here in the United States, we legally protect minors in contract law, by not permitting them to sign contracts is so as to protect the minor from their lack of maturity.

    As such, the question is presented: If under contract law, Obama being a minor was unable to sign a contract then how could it be possible that he would have the maturity to relinquished his United States citizenship?

    It bears repeating over and over again.

    A child born in the United States does not lose his or her U.S. citizenship by moving to another country. Moreover if the other country does not recognize dual citizenship then the child’s place of birth will be his or her sole citizenship.

    The other country’s nationalization laws do not pre-empt United States citizenship laws regarding its citizens; in other words, a foreign country’s nationalization laws does not strip a United States citizen of his or her citizenship.

    The only way a United States citizen can have his citizenship revoke is by doing any of the proscribed acts listed in 8 U.S.C. 1481.These proscribed acts required the United States citizens to have attained the age of eighteen or committed an act of treason and being convicted of treason.

    In this case, Obama being under the age of EIGHTEEN and having not been accused and tried for treason against the United States while he was living in Indonesia did not lose his United States citizenship.

    What Sven fails to understand is that the only way a natural born or naturalized citizen can have his or her United States citizenship revoked is by the citizen doing any one of the proscribed acts listed in 8 U.S.C. 1481. If they took the time to read this statute they will realize that a MINOR can’t renounced his or her United States citizenship because those acts required either the citizen have attained the AGE OF EIGHTEEN or have been tried and convicted for TREASON.Since Obama had neither attained the age of eighteen nor was he tried and convicted of TREASON.

    Sven wouldhave to claim that a CHILD under the age of ten (being the age that Obama left Indonesia to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents) had the necessary mental capacity to understand that he was relinquishing his United States citizenship.Here in the United States, we legally protect minors in contract law, by not permitting them to sign contracts is so as to protect the minor from their lack of maturity.

    As such, the question is presented: If under contract law, Obama being a minor was unable to sign a contract then how could it be possible that he would have the maturity to relinquish his United States citizenship?

    It is a common misconception a minor cannot enter into a contract because the contract is revocable until the person reaches the age of majority.

    In Obama’s case, and in any case involving a minor who moves out of the U.S. and renounces their citizenship, the renouncement is revocable until 6 months past their age of majority. At the time precedent was set in Perkins v. Elg, the age of majority for Ms. Elg was 21. SCOTUS did not rule minors could not have the citizenship renounced by their custodial parent after they moved out of the US. SCOTUS ruled Ms. Elg had the right of return to the U.S. and recapture her U.S. citizenship within 6 months after reaching the age of majority. The theory predicated on the fact Ms. Elg’s father could no longer legally control her after she reached the age of majority. After she reached the age of majority, Ms. Elg chose to return to the U.S. and recapture her US citizenship. The US government initially granted Ms. Elg a US passport and then tried to deport her after she tried to renew her expired US passport. SCOTUS did not opine Mr. Elg could not have renounced his child’s US citizenship. SCOTUS did opine Ms. Elg had the right to return to the US as an adult and recapture her birthright.

    The age of majority for Obama was 18. When Obama turned 18, he was emancipated and in control of his own destiny. As a person living in the U.S. who had his US citizenship revoked in 1968 through formal renunciation (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5); as amended, Public Law 87-301, 1961.) Subsequent to emancipation and within 6 months past his 18th birthday, Obama could have recaptured his US citizenship without going through the naturalization process because a minor’s certificate of loss of nationality is revocable until that time.

    In 1968, US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to Barry Soetoro at the request of his parents Stanley Ann Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro. The Soetoro adoption was finalized in Hawaii. The Soetoro adoption was annulled in 1971 after BHO Sr. returned to Hawaii to complain his son was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and his parental rights taken away without his knowledge or consent. Barry Soetoro’s name was legally change back to Barack Obama, II, and he was granted legal permanent resident status until he could a decision as an emancipated person as to whether or not he wanted to recapture his US citizenship.

    Obama chose not to recapture his US citizenship within 6 months of his 18th birthday and remained a legal permanent resident alien until 1983. In 1983, Obama naturalized as a US citizen after his petition for a certificate of naturalization was granted in the USDC for the Central District of California.

    In 2008, senior Bush administration officials amended the CFR with respect to the cancelling of Certificates of Loss of Nationality. After the CFR was amended, Obama’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality issued to Barry Soetoro in 1968 by SoS Dean Rusk, was cancelled by Assistant Secretary of State (name redacted). I’m redacting the name to protect one or more whistleblowers. This individual or these individuals are whistleblowers because the 2008 CFR amendments were challenged in the USDC for the District of Columbia, Fox v. Clinton, 2012. The court dismissed the challenge by Fox and he appealed. The Circuit court reversed and remanded because the State Department’s interpretation of INA, Section 1 was arbitrary and capricious and not subject to Chevron deference.

    Consequently, the cancelling of Obama’s CLN in 2008, based on amendments to the CFR in 2008 relied upon by the State Department in Fox v. Clinton, was arbitrary and capricious and not subject to Chevron deference. One or more whistleblowers are ready, willing and able to testify under oath if they were given the opportunity and a full compliment of whistleblower protections. Thus far, all they’ve gotten for their patriotism and determined defense of the US Constitution is threats, harassment and mockery.

  180. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 20, 2015 at 2:43 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It is a common misconception a minor cannot enter into a contract because the contract is revocable until the person reaches the age of majority.

    In Obama’s case, and in any case involving a minor who moves out of the U.S. and renounces their citizenship, the renouncement is revocable until 6 months past their age of majority. At the time precedent was set in Perkins v. Elg, the age of majority for Ms. Elg was 21. SCOTUS did not rule minors could not have the citizenship renounced by their custodial parent after they moved out of the US. SCOTUS ruled Ms. Elg had the right of return to the U.S. and recapture her U.S. citizenship within 6 months after reaching the age of majority. The theory predicated on the fact Ms. Elg’s father could no longer legally control her after she reached the age of majority. After she reached the age of majority, Ms. Elg chose to return to the U.S. and recapture her US citizenship. The US government initially granted Ms. Elg a US passport and then tried to deport her after she tried to renew her expired US passport. SCOTUS did not opine Mr. Elg could not have renounced his child’s US citizenship. SCOTUS did opine Ms. Elg had the right to return to the US as an adult and recapture her birthright.

    The age of majority for Obama was 18. When Obama turned 18, he was emancipated and in control of his own destiny. As a person living in the U.S. who had his US citizenship revoked in 1968 through formal renunciation (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5); as amended, Public Law 87-301, 1961.) Subsequent to emancipation and within 6months past his 18th birthday, Obama could have recaptured his US citizenship without going through the naturalization process because a minor’s certificate of loss of nationality is revocable until that time.

    In 1968, US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to Barry Soetoro at the request of his parents Stanley Ann Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro. The Soetoro adoption was finalized in Hawaii. The Soetoro adoption was annulled in 1971 after BHO Sr. returned to Hawaii to complain his son was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and his parental rights taken away without his knowledge or consent. Barry Soetoro’s name was legally change back to Barack Obama, II, and he was granted legal permanent resident status until he could a decision as an emancipated person as to whether or not he wanted to recapture his US citizenship.

    Obama chose not to recapture his US citizenship within 6 months of his 18th birthday and remained a legal permanent resident alien until 1983. In 1983, Obama naturalized as a US citizen after his petition for a certificate of naturalization was granted in the USDC for the Central District of California.

    In 2008, senior Bush administration officials amended the CFR with respect to the cancelling of Certificates of Loss of Nationality. After the CFR was amended, Obama’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality issued to Barry Soetoro in 1968 by SoS Dean Rusk, was cancelled by Assistant Secretary of State (name redacted). I’m redacting the name to protect one or more whistleblowers. This individual or these individuals are whistleblowers because the 2008 CFR amendments were challenged in the USDC for the District of Columbia, Fox v. Clinton, 2012. The court dismissed the challenge by Fox and he appealed. The Circuit court reversed and remanded because the State Department’s interpretation of INA, Section 1 was arbitrary and capricious and not subject to Chevron deference.

    Consequently, the cancelling of Obama’s CLN in 2008, based on amendments to the CFR in 2008 relied upon by the State Department in Fox v. Clinton, was arbitrary and capricious and not subject to Chevron deference. One or more whistleblowers are ready, willing and able to testify under oath if they were given the opportunity and a full compliment of whistleblower protections. Thus far, all they’ve gotten for their patriotism and determined defense of the US Constitution is threats, harassment and mockery.

    Obama was never adopted by his Indonesian step-Father.

    The law in question is Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, 62/1958 for short. Assuming an adoption took place, it would fall under Article 2 of this law.
    “Article 2.
    (1)A foreign child of less THAN 5 YEARS AGE who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.” (emphasis added)

    Note the age limit there – less than 5 years of age. Lolo Soetoro married Stanley Ann Dunham in either 1966 or 1967. This would have made Obama either five or six – over the age limit according to Indonesian law. Furthermore, they didn’t move to Indonesia until 1967, when Obama was six years old.

    Therefore, under Indonesian law, there was no way via adoption that Indonesian citizenship could have been granted to Barack Obama.

  181. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 20, 2015 at 3:00 pm #

    J.D. Sue:

    You’re ignoring the part about one or more whistleblowers who are ready, willing and able to testify and offer proof in court. Just because the whistleblowers haven’t started a blog with video, pdfs and affidavits doesn’t mean they don’t exist and are not willing to testify and offer evidence.

    Further, it is alleged AG Michael Muskasey, cancelled Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization in 2008 after an administrative hearing. The cancellation was predicated on the testimony of (name redacted to protect one or more whistleblowers). Administrative cancellations of Certificates of Naturalization do not effect the citizenship status of the subject. The Plaintiff will certainly challenge any denial by the US government that Obama is not a naturalized citizen.

    Obama did not attend or testify at the administrative hearing to cancel his certificate of naturalization. To date, Obama considers himself a native born, naturalized US citizen installed in the Office of the President of the United States by the will of the majority of American voters. The majority of voters have decided to dismantle the constitutional republic by voting for an ineligible President. There is no federal mechanism to prevent an ineligible President from assuming the office. US federal officers, other than the President and VP, are under oath to protect and defend the constitution pursuant to Article VI.

  182. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 20, 2015 at 3:07 pm #

    Atticus Finch: Obama was never adopted by his Indonesian step-Father.

    The law in question is Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, 62/1958 for short. Assuming an adoption took place, it would fall under Article 2 of this law.
    “Article 2.
    (1)A foreign child of less THAN 5 YEARS AGE who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.” (emphasis added)

    Note the age limit there – less than 5 years of age. Lolo Soetoro married Stanley Ann Dunham in either 1966 or 1967. This would have made Obama either five or six – over the age limit according to Indonesian law. Furthermore, they didn’t move to Indonesia until 1967, when Obama was six years old.

    Therefore, under Indonesian law, there was no way via adoption that Indonesian citizenship could have been granted to Barack Obama.

    Obama was adopted in Hawaii by Lolo Soetoro. The Soetoro adoption was annulled in Hawaii in 1971 after Obama Sr. returned to Hawaii to complain his parental rights were stripped without notice.

    Again, whistleblowers and evidence are available to support this.

  183. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 20, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama was adopted in Hawaii by Lolo Soetoro. The Soetoro adoption was annulled in Hawaii in 1971 after Obama Sr. returned to Hawaii to complain his parental rights were stripped without notice.

    Again, whistleblowers and evidence are available to support this.

    Nice try but no he wasn’t adopted in Hawaii. When Lolo was trying to stay in Hawaii his basis was that he was married to Barack Obama II’s mother and he was helping take care of the child. The state department concluded there was no adoption. If there was a real adoption there would have been public record of such.

    Okay if the evidence is available to support it how come you can’t present it?

  184. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 20, 2015 at 3:36 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Further, it is alleged AG Michael Muskasey, cancelled Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization in 2008 after an administrative hearing. The cancellation was predicated on the testimony of (name redacted to protect one or more whistleblowers). Administrative cancellations of Certificates of Naturalization do not effect the citizenship status of the subject. The Plaintiff will certainly challenge any denial by the US government that Obama is not a naturalized citizen.

    Yes it is alleged solely by you. You’ve never presented any proof to support it. You’ve never presented any proof he was naturalized or lost his US citizenship. You lied.

  185. avatar
    bgansel9 February 20, 2015 at 3:44 pm #

    J.D. Sue: Ok, I’ll play. True. Roughly, if a motion to dismiss is denied, the defendant then files an Answer to the complaint (denying the allegation of naturalization, and demanding proof). Likely, the defendant will simultaneously file a motion for summary judgment (demanding judgment on the merits), with an affidavit from the government attached thereto averring there was no naturalization. Then, Sven would have to file a response to the motion for summary judgment–with Sven’s “evidence” (to contradict the affidavit) attached thereto. Having no evidence, Sven loses on the merits. All this, before discovery. No trial.

    Thank you, J.D. Sue. I thought so.

  186. avatar
    Jim February 20, 2015 at 3:52 pm #

    J.D. Sue: Ok, I’ll play. True. Roughly, if a motion to dismiss is denied, the defendant then files an Answer to the complaint (denying the allegation of naturalization, and demanding proof). Likely, the defendant will simultaneously file a motion for summary judgment (demanding judgment on the merits), with an affidavit from the government attached thereto averring there was no naturalization. Then, Sven would have to file a response to the motion for summary judgment–with Sven’s “evidence” (to contradict the affidavit) attached thereto. Having no evidence, Sven loses on the merits. All this, before discovery. No trial.

    That’s WAAAAAAY off base! You can’t fool me, where’s the motion for reconsideration? The motion to reconsider the reconsideration? The motion to start discovery because I say so? I’ve been watching Orlylaw for over 6 years now, I KNOW that’s not how it works!!! 😆

  187. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 20, 2015 at 3:52 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You’re ignoring the part about one or more whistleblowers who are ready, willing and able to testify and offer proof in court.

    —–
    I can hardly wait to see their affidavits when you file them in court, along with your summary judgment response brief. I’m glad you finally gave up that ridiculous notion of keeping your witnesses/evidence secret until “rebuttal” at trial.

  188. avatar
    bgansel9 February 20, 2015 at 3:57 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    “As I mentioned, President Bush’s AG, Michael Mukasey, former Chief Judge of the USDC for the SDNY, cancelled Obama’s certificate of naturalization a few months prior to a national election in 2008. Prior to the cancellation of Obama’s certificate of naturalization, Obama’s certificate of loss of nationality was cancelled by an assistant Secretary of State that I have not named publicly”

    Ummm, if Obama was naturalized in 1983, how could that naturalization be “canceled” more than 30 years later? Explain please? Also, how could it be canceled by the party who sought naturalization when U.S.C.I.S. is the party that cancels naturalization certificates for fraudulently obtained naturalization? – http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartK-Chapter5.html

  189. avatar
    bgansel9 February 20, 2015 at 4:00 pm #

    Jim: That’s WAAAAAAY off base! You can’t fool me, where’s the motion for reconsideration? The motion to reconsider the reconsideration? The motion to start discovery because I say so? I’ve been watching Orlylaw for over 6 years now, I KNOW that’s not how it works!!!

    You do “Birther” rather well. 😛

  190. avatar
    Nancy R Owens February 20, 2015 at 4:01 pm #

    No.

    SvenMagnussen: Obama was adopted in Hawaii by Lolo Soetoro. The Soetoro adoption was annulled in Hawaii in 1971 after Obama Sr. returned to Hawaii to complain his parental rights were stripped without notice.

    Again, whistleblowers and evidence are available to support this.

  191. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama was adopted in Hawaii by Lolo Soetoro. The Soetoro adoption was annulled in Hawaii in 1971 after Obama Sr. returned to Hawaii to complain his parental rights were stripped without notice.

    Again, whistleblowers and evidence are available to support this.

    You are simply a liar. What kind of person makes assertions of factual claims they have no evidence to support? There is seriously something wrong with you. The birther threads even ignore your nonsense.

    And, I hope you are not a lawyer as you seem to understand nothing about law at all. And Perkins v. Elg stated that a native born child simply needed to return and reside in the US within a reasonable period after reaching majority and cited authority that such a period would be eligible to be President. Seriously, are you really a lawyer as you sound like a moron.

  192. avatar
    gorefan February 20, 2015 at 4:34 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama was adopted in Hawaii by Lolo Soetoro.

    Immigration records prove that no adoption took place before September, 1967 at which time President Obama was 6 years old. Under Indonesian law he could only gain Indonesian citizenship by naturalization after he turned 21 or by petition within 1 year after his 18th birthday.

    There is also the sworn affidavit and photographic evidence by the custom official who admitted 9 year old Barack Obama into the United States in June, 1971 using a US Passport.

  193. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 20, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

    Jim:
    J.D. Sue: Ok, I’ll play. True. Roughly, if a motion to dismiss is denied, the defendant then files an Answer to the complaint (denying the allegation of naturalization, and demanding proof). Likely, the defendant will simultaneously file a motion for summary judgment (demanding judgment on the merits), with an affidavit from the government attached thereto averring there was no naturalization. Then, Sven would have to file a response to the motion for summary judgment–with Sven’s “evidence” (to contradict the affidavit) attached thereto. Having no evidence, Sven loses on the merits. All this, before discovery. No trial.

    That’s WAAAAAAY off base!You can’t fool me, where’s the motion for reconsideration?The motion to reconsider the reconsideration?The motion to start discovery because I say so?I’ve been watching Orlylaw for over 6 years now, I KNOW that’s not how it works!!!

    Let me illustrate with an example.

    Let’s say I sue Orly Taitz alleging she is not a U.S. citizen and did not naturalize. Orly’s motion to dismiss is denied and she answers by denying she is not a U.S. citizen and did not naturalize.

    I demand we proceed to discovery and depositions to get the evidence I need to prove my case with primary sources. I have secondary sources for rebuttal if the primary sources deny the allegations or deny evidence exists that will prove my allegations.

    A US federal officer who is authorized to make statements on behalf of the US government with respect to naturalized citizens steps in, as a disinterested party, and files an affidavit swearing under oath Orly is a U.S. citizen and she did naturalize.

    Case dismissed.

    In contrast, Obama as an ineligible President is a threat to the character, livelyhood and reputation of all US federal officers. Pursuant to Article VI of the US Constitution, all US federal officers are under oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The US federal officer is no longer a disinterested party. His or her affidavit is selfserving. An ineligible President begins the dismantling of the US Constitution. All US federal officers have a vested interest in covering up his ineligibility, keeping quiet after the FBI investigates and is informed by Obama that he is a naturalized citizen, and mocking and belittling whistleblowers to try and salvage their career, retirement and reputation.

    In Obama’s case, the affidavit would appear to be disingenuous.

  194. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 20, 2015 at 5:00 pm #

    gorefan: Immigration records prove that no adoption took place before September, 1967 at which time President Obama was 6 years old.Under Indonesian law he could only gain Indonesian citizenship by naturalization after he turned 21 or by petition within 1 year after his 18th birthday.

    There is also the sworn affidavit and photographic evidence by the custom official who admitted 9 year old Barack Obama into the United States in June, 1971 using a US Passport.

    Immigration records have been selectively exposed publicly to show the adoption in Hawaii had not finalized in Sept., 1967. Further evidence will show the adoption finalized in Hawaii shortly after Sept., 1967. On January 1, 1968. Barry Soetoro, Indonesian national, was enrolled in an elementary school in Jakarta, Indonesia managed and controlled by Catholic Social Services, Hartford, CT.

    The complete record paints an entirely different backstory than the selective information that has been released publicly.

  195. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 20, 2015 at 5:10 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —–
    I can hardly wait to see their affidavits when you file them in court, along with your summary judgment response brief.I’m glad you finally gave up that ridiculous notion of keeping your witnesses/evidence secret until “rebuttal” at trial.

    The response is the US federal officer’s affidavit is self-serving because the US federal officer has a vested interest in covering up Obama’s ineligibility. An ineligible President begins the dismantling of the constitutional republic. US federal officers have the means and motive to harass, intimidate and threaten witnesses who jeopardize their livelyhood and reputation.

    Consequently, rebuttal witnesses and their evidence are not identified until the day of the trial.

  196. avatar
    bgansel9 February 20, 2015 at 5:19 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The response is the US federal officer’s affidavit is self-serving because the US federal officer has a vested interest in covering up Obama’s ineligibility

    What cover up? Prove there was a cover up.

  197. avatar
    bgansel9 February 20, 2015 at 5:26 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In contrast, Obama as an ineligible President is a threat to the character, livelyhood and reputation of all US federal officers.

    Try it and let’s see the results. LOL

  198. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 20, 2015 at 5:30 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In Obama’s case, the affidavit would appear to be disingenuous.

    —-
    It would not appear that way to a judge, or any other sane human.

    And you would never get to discovery in your fake case against Orly either.

    BTW, if you ever did get to discovery, guess who would end up being the first one in the case to have to answer interrogatories, produce evidence, and submit to deposition. (Hint: You)

  199. avatar
    Whatever4 February 20, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Or …

    C. An allegation is made that Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States and in violation of the Eligibility Clause. A federal judge hears the motion to dismiss and decides to allow discovery to begin.

    The main problem with your scenario is that no one is ever going to get to the place where Obama is sitting in a deposition about his eligibility. So no Gotcha! Moment (tm Sarah Palin) will ever happen.

    You’d need the document to have enough evidence to get a federal judge to even listen. But having the document in the press would certainly get an investigation going.

  200. avatar
    Whatever4 February 20, 2015 at 5:33 pm #

    Keith: Um, sorry, you must have missed the memos.

    We’ve been in America Version 3 since 1789. Current update level is 3.27

    Please do try to keep up.

    Nice. I like that, will steal.

  201. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 20, 2015 at 5:43 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Consequently, rebuttal witnesses and their evidence are not identified until the day of the trial.

    —-

    BTW, at trial, which witnesses and evidence would you present in your case-in-chief, to carry your burden of proof and to survive a motion for a directed verdict before defendant presents his/her defense?

  202. avatar
    gorefan February 20, 2015 at 8:53 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Immigration records have been selectively exposed publicly to show the adoption in Hawaii had not finalized in Sept., 1967.

    Under Indonesian law President Obama could only become an Indonesian citizen in three ways:

    Adoption before the age of five (you have ruled that out),

    Petition within one year after reaching the age of 18,

    Naturalization at the age of 21.

  203. avatar
    Keith February 20, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

    Whatever4: Nice. I like that, will steal.

    By my reckoning:

    Version 0: pre-European Settlement
    Version 1: Colonial America
    Version 2: Articles of Confederation
    Version 3: The Constitution

    others may have their own reckoning, but America 2.0 was a long time ago by any body’s reckoning.

  204. avatar
    John Reilly February 21, 2015 at 12:06 am #

    Sven: do let us know when you file your complaint in court. I’m pretty sure Doc will post a link.

    You will do it soon, right? Like before Chelsea Clinton or Jenna Bush is President, right? Sometime when there are a few of Pres. Obama’s laws still in effect so we get the benefit of the magic reset button.

    And let us know when Pres. Obama is scheduled to testify. Maybe you can put it on YouTube.

  205. avatar
    Lupin February 21, 2015 at 1:41 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama chose not to recapture his US citizenship within 6 months of his 18th birthday and remained a legal permanent resident alien until 1983.

    Since one CANNOT enter Europe with just a US green card; one needs a valid passport (and US citizens do not need a visa for stays under 6 months unlike Indonesian nationals) Obama’s presence in Europe in 1981 completely invalidates your theory.

  206. avatar
    faceman February 21, 2015 at 6:44 am #

    Jim: J.D. Sue: Ok, I’ll play. True. Roughly, if a motion to dismiss is denied, the defendant then files an Answer to the complaint (denying the allegation of naturalization, and demanding proof). Likely, the defendant will simultaneously file a motion for summary judgment (demanding judgment on the merits), with an affidavit from the government attached thereto averring there was no naturalization. Then, Sven would have to file a response to the motion for summary judgment–with Sven’s “evidence” (to contradict the affidavit) attached thereto. Having no evidence, Sven loses on the merits. All this, before discovery. No trial.That’s WAAAAAAY off base! You can’t fool me, where’s the motion for reconsideration? The motion to reconsider the reconsideration? The motion to start discovery because I say so? I’ve been watching Orlylaw for over 6 years now, I KNOW that’s not how it works!!!

    You forgot about the parts where the plaintiff accuses the judge of being an illegal Obama appointee, and the appeal to the SCOTUS.

  207. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 21, 2015 at 7:01 am #

    The main problem with ALL of Svenski’s wild assed theories fantasies, is that they all entail there being very public records left behind, and yet he has found or produced nary a one. The simple answer, is that Svenski is a liar.

    Incidentally Svenski, under Federal law, the only way you can legally renounce you citizenship is to take your sorry ass completely outside of the country, go to an embassy somewhere, annoy an embassy officer, and formally ask to renounce, followed by the signing of multitudinous documents, and provide proof of new citizenship elsewhere. More of those damned public records again. At which point you will most likely NEVER EVER be allowed to re-enter this country again.

  208. avatar
    Lupin February 21, 2015 at 12:03 pm #

    Notorial Dissent: The main problem with ALL of Svenski’s wild assed theories fantasies, is that they all entail there being very public records left behind, and yet he has found or produced nary a one. The simple answer, is that Svenski is a liar.

    I don’t know how investigations work out in the US, but I assume that is someone, Mr. X, is suspected of a crime in Califorbia, and almost immediately the police discovers that at the time the crime was committed Mr. x was in France, they would immediately move on, not bother charging Mr. X, hence no discovery, testimonials, etc. That’s why Sven’s logic eludes me.

  209. avatar
    bgansel9 February 21, 2015 at 12:08 pm #

    Notorial Dissent: Incidentally Svenski, under Federal law, the only way you can legally renounce you citizenship is to take your sorry ass completely outside of the country, go to an embassy somewhere, annoy an embassy officer, and formally ask to renounce, followed by the signing of multitudinous documents, and provide proof of new citizenship elsewhere. More of those damned public records again. At which point you will most likely NEVER EVER be allowed to re-enter this country again.

    Maybe “Svenski” should try it to see how it works. Bwahahaha!

  210. avatar
    Rickey February 21, 2015 at 12:20 pm #

    Notorial Dissent:
    The main problem with ALL of Svenski’s wild assed theories fantasies, is that they all entail there being very public records left behind, and yet he has found or produced nary a one. The simple answer, is that Svenski is a liar.

    The other major problem being that his theories require that Obama renounced his U.S. citizenship while he was living in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, which was impossible.

    Incidentally Svenski, under Federal law, the only way you can legally renounce you citizenship is to take your sorry ass completely outside of the country, go to an embassy somewhere, annoy an embassy officer, and formally ask to renounce, followed by the signing of multitudinous documents, and provide proof of new citizenship elsewhere. More of those damned public records again. At which point you will most likely NEVER EVER be allowed to re-enter this country again.

    A case in point is Bitcoin investor Roger Ver, who renounced his U.S. citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes, and now he can’t get a visa to visit the U.S.

  211. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund February 21, 2015 at 6:06 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It is a common misconception a minor cannot enter into a contract because the contract is revocable until the person reaches the age of majority.

    In Obama’s case, and in any case involving a minor who moves out of the U.S. and renounces their citizenship, the renouncement is revocable until 6 months past their age of majority. At the time precedent was set in Perkins v. Elg, the age of majority for Ms. Elg was 21. SCOTUS did not rule minors could not have the citizenship renounced by their custodial parent after they moved out of the US. SCOTUS ruled Ms. Elg had the right of return to the U.S. and recapture her U.S. citizenship within 6 months after reaching the age of majority. The theory predicated on the fact Ms. Elg’s father could no longer legally control her after she reached the age of majority. After she reached the age of majority, Ms. Elg chose to return to the U.S. and recapture her US citizenship. The US government initially granted Ms. Elg a US passport and then tried to deport her after she tried to renew her expired US passport. SCOTUS did not opine Mr. Elg could not have renounced his child’s US citizenship. SCOTUS did opine Ms. Elg had the right to return to the US as an adult and recapture her birthright.

    The age of majority for Obama was 18. When Obama turned 18, he was emancipated and in control of his own destiny. As a person living in the U.S. who had his US citizenship revoked in 1968 through formal renunciation (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5); as amended, Public Law 87-301, 1961.) Subsequent to emancipation and within 6months past his 18th birthday, Obama could have recaptured his US citizenship without going through the naturalization process because a minor’s certificate of loss of nationality is revocable until that time.

    In 1968, US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to Barry Soetoro at the request of his parents Stanley Ann Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro. The Soetoro adoption was finalized in Hawaii. The Soetoro adoption was annulled in 1971 after BHO Sr. returned to Hawaii to complain his son was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and his parental rights taken away without his knowledge or consent. Barry Soetoro’s name was legally change back to Barack Obama, II, and he was granted legal permanent resident status until he could a decision as an emancipated person as to whether or not he wanted to recapture his US citizenship.

    Obama chose not to recapture his US citizenship within 6 months of his 18th birthday and remained a legal permanent resident alien until 1983. In 1983, Obama naturalized as a US citizen after his petition for a certificate of naturalization was granted in the USDC for the Central District of California.

    In 2008, senior Bush administration officials amended the CFR with respect to the cancelling of Certificates of Loss of Nationality. After the CFR was amended, Obama’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality issued to Barry Soetoro in 1968 by SoS Dean Rusk, was cancelled by Assistant Secretary of State (name redacted). I’m redacting the name to protect one or more whistleblowers. This individual or these individuals are whistleblowers because the 2008 CFR amendments were challenged in the USDC for the District of Columbia, Fox v. Clinton, 2012. The court dismissed the challenge by Fox and he appealed. The Circuit court reversed and remanded because the State Department’s interpretation of INA, Section 1 was arbitrary and capricious and not subject to Chevron deference.

    Consequently, the cancelling of Obama’s CLN in 2008, based on amendments to the CFR in 2008 relied upon by the State Department in Fox v. Clinton, was arbitrary and capricious and not subject to Chevron deference. One or more whistleblowers are ready, willing and able to testify under oath if they were given the opportunity and a full compliment of whistleblower protections. Thus far, all they’ve gotten for their patriotism and determined defense of the US Constitution is threats, harassment and mockery.

    Not surprisingly, Sven is lying about Perkins v. Elg. The Supreme Court did not rule that Elg had “only 6 months” to “recapture” her citizenship. Rather, it ruled that she had a reasonable amount of time after achieving her majority to retain her citizenship. The difference between “recapture” and “retain” is vital. Recapture means that you have lost something, while retain means that you still have possession. Furthermore, the court affirmed the ruling that she was a natural born citizen, not that she was naturalized.

    Elg never lost her citizenship. Nor did Obama, even if he did somehow manage to illegally acquire Indonesian citizenship.

  212. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 21, 2015 at 6:26 pm #

    Q: How can you tell Sven is lying?
    A: He posted something.

  213. avatar
    Northland10 February 22, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Let’s say I sue Orly Taitz alleging she is not a U.S. citizen and did not naturalize. Orly’s motion to dismiss is denied and she answers by denying she is not a U.S. citizen and did not naturalize.

    Even Orly would be able to get this one dismissed on standing and failure to state a claim. If she was unable, I doubt your hypothetical would survive motion for summary judgement. You actually have to proffer something, not just allege with no support whatsoever.

    The other problem with your theory is, Obama is eligible for his office until January 2017.

    At least you have now proven that there is somebody more clueless than Orly Taitz.

  214. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 22, 2015 at 11:17 pm #

    Northland10: At least you have now proven that there is somebody more clueless than Orly Taitz.

    I thought birther john already wore that paper crown.

  215. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 23, 2015 at 6:32 am #

    Actually, I thought he had been awarded multiple tiers with his model for going above and beyond the call.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I thought birther john already wore that paper crown.

  216. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 23, 2015 at 1:47 pm #

    Northland10: Even Orly would be able to get this one dismissed on standing and failure to state a claim.If she was unable, I doubt your hypothetical would survive motion for summary judgement.You actually have to proffer something, not just allege with no support whatsoever.

    The other problem with your theory is, Obama is eligible for his office until January 2017.

    At least you have now proven that there is somebody more clueless than Orly Taitz.

    The federal courts are not constitutionally authorized to remove a sitting President unless there is an impeachment in the House and a trail and conviction in the Senate. All previous eligibility cases have sought to remove a sitting President, a writ declaring Obama to be ineligible, Quo warranto, or a demand for Congress to investigate and report. The federal courts are not authorized to hear cases or controversies which demand removal or some punishment or some adverse action against a sitting President who is fulfilling the will of the majority of American voters. For some oddball reason, several internet savvy attorneys have decided that only Obama will suffer some punitative measure if his ineligibility is publicly exposed.

    My case is distinguishable from previous eligibility cases because it seeks relief and an exemption from the destruction of the constitutional republic. Obama is fulfilling the will of the American people. Appointees, contractors, subcontractors, and career federal employees in executive management are required, pursuant to Article VI, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is the appointees and other US federal executive level officers who are in jeopardy of adverse action for not defending the Constitution against mob tyranny.

    Eventually Obama’s ineligibility will be exposed because privacy rights are not held in perpetuity. It’s Obama’s federal records and not his state records that prove ineligibility. At that time Obama or his estate will remind people he was merely fulfilling the will of the majority. US federal executive level officers; judges, cabinet officials, lawyers for the DoJ and DHS, etc., are delaying the exposure of Obama’s ineligibility so they can milk the failing system as much as they can and as fast as they can.

    Obama understands this and will admit he naturalized in 1983 if he is deposed under oath. If the press, a Congressman, or a concerned citizen asked Obama if he is eligible, he will laugh and remind the questioner he was born in Hawaii.

  217. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 23, 2015 at 2:34 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: My case is distinguishable from previous eligibility cases because

    —-
    No actual facts. No evidence. No comprehension of the law. No distinction.

  218. avatar
    Jim February 23, 2015 at 2:59 pm #

    Sven, I’m quite sure that the president understands the constitution a heck of a lot better than you. When you file your nonsense and it gets dismissed, we’ll handle the laughing for the president. He’s got much better things to do than worry about some nutjob on the internet who doesn’t know or understand the constitution.

  219. avatar
    bgansel9 February 23, 2015 at 3:23 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It’s Obama’s federal records and not his state records that prove ineligibility.

    Cite the case number or STFU!

  220. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 23, 2015 at 3:29 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    No actual facts.No evidence.No comprehension of the law.No distinction.

    Orly should object to the appointments of Johnson and Burwell as a violation of the Appointments Clause and Article VI and seek relief from the actions of those appointees for not supporting the Constitution after an ineligible President assumes the office.

    Of course, Johnson and Burwell will scream about Absolute Immunity, Sovereign Immunity and whatever other immunity they can dream up to justify violations of the Constitution. Orly should then request a hearing before Judge Hanen to determine Obama’s eligibility to see if Johnson and Burwell are entitled to any immunity for supporting an ineligible President.

    When the DoJ attorneys say Obama was born in Hawaii, Orly should remind Judge Hanen the Supremacy Clause makes the State of Hawaii’s records subordinate to the US federal government’s records. And then object to the DoJ attorneys supporting an ineligible President in violation of Article VI and demand their pleading be stricken from the record or conduct a hearing on the eligibility of President Obama.

    Object to the FRCP and FRE after a court order recommending those amendments voted on by Obama SCOTUS appointees Kagen and Sotomayor. Object the laws held in trust as evidence of US Law by the Archivist of the United States, another appointee of Obama. And finally, object to the amendments to the APA signed into law by the ineligible President Obama.

    And then ask Judge Hanen to remand the case to a retired federal judge who does not have a vested interest in covering up Obama’s ineligibility to protect their career and reputation.

  221. avatar
    bgansel9 February 23, 2015 at 3:43 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Orly should object to the appointments of Johnson and Burwell as a violation of the Appointments Clause and Article VI and seek relief from the actions of those appointees for not supporting the Constitution after an ineligible President assumes the office.

    Of course, Johnson and Burwell will scream about Absolute Immunity, Sovereign Immunity and whatever other immunity they can dream up to justify violations of the Constitution. Orly should then request a hearing before Judge Hanen to determine Obama’s eligibility to see if Johnson and Burwell are entitled to any immunity for supporting an ineligible President.

    Didn’t you just state that it’s not up to the courts to decide eligibility?

    SvenMagnussen: The federal courts are not constitutionally authorized to remove a sitting President unless there is an impeachment in the House and a trail and conviction in the Senate.

    Yeah, I think you just did. So what you’re saying is a court isn’t going to remove a sitting president, but they are going to treat him as ineligible and remove his officers? Are you insane? Yes, I believe you are.

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm #

    Sorry that I haven’t been paying attention. You have an eligibility case?

    SvenMagnussen: My case is distinguishable from previous eligibility cases because it seeks relief and an exemption from the destruction of the constitutional republic.

  223. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 23, 2015 at 4:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Sorry that I haven’t been paying attention. You have an eligibility case?

    Not any more. I’d cite the case number and court, but I prefer privacy.

  224. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile February 23, 2015 at 4:38 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Not any more. I’d cite the case number and court, but I prefer privacy.

    Then why should we believe you?

  225. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 23, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

    bgansel9: Didn’t you just state that it’s not up to the courts to decide eligibility?

    Yeah, I think you just did.So what you’re saying is a court isn’t going to remove a sitting president, but they are going to treat him as ineligible and remove his officers? Are you insane? Yes, I believe you are.

    Read Article VI carefully:

    ———————————————————————————-

    Article. VI.

    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
    ———————————————————————————-

    Judicial officers and executive officers are bound to support the Constitution. If the President is ineligible, the judicial officers and executive officers, etc., must object to support the Constitution.

    The President can only be removed from office after impeachment and trial and conviction in the Senate. The federal courts are not authorized to adversely impact the President as he fulfills the will of the majority, but can enjoin judicial officers and executive level officers from supporting an ineligible President as he works to dismantle the constitutional republic or “fundamentally change America.”

  226. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 23, 2015 at 5:19 pm #

    Sven, you should also file cases about equally troublesome topics:

    Obama’s eligibility is a good start. Then you should maybe attack the spherical-earth hoax, the helio-centrism hoax, and the government’s suppression of free-energy machines.

  227. avatar
    bgansel9 February 23, 2015 at 5:22 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Judicial officers and executive officers are bound to support the Constitution. If the President is ineligible, the judicial officers and executive officers, etc., must object to support the Constitution.

    1. The president ISN’T inelgible
    2. Even if he were, you yourself stated that a court can’t make that decision, that Congress has to. Therefore, without a finding of ineligibility, no court is going to make any decisions regarding the officers of said president prior to a Congressional action. You are insane.

    3. The Constitution is being supported. I’m sorry that you are so lost in conspiracy theories that you have no clue how that actually works.

    But, I invite you to throw your hate (I mean your hat) into the birther lawsuit ring and see how you fare. LOL

  228. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 23, 2015 at 5:48 pm #

    Answer the question Svenny! If you’re not willing to share the case number, why should we believe you?

  229. avatar
    bgansel9 February 23, 2015 at 5:57 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Answer the question Svenny! If you’re not willing to share the case number, why should we believe you?

    Sven seems to think that we are dumb enough to believe him without a source to verify his claim, after all, that’s what the birthers do.

  230. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 23, 2015 at 6:57 pm #

    bgansel9: Sven seems to think that we are dumb enough to believe him without a source to verify his claim, after all, that’s what the birthers do.

    I suppose next he’s going to trot out “The Ghost Who Never Lies”, but only he can see and hear him.

  231. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

    I can respect that. I assume, given that Obama is still in office, that the case didn’t come out the way you hoped.

    SvenMagnussen: Not any more. I’d cite the case number and court, but I prefer privacy.

  232. avatar
    bgansel9 February 23, 2015 at 7:40 pm #

    Doc, Sven has been stating that the National Archives in Riverside, CA has a naturalization document for PBO. I asked him to cite the case number for that document, he refuses to do so. He is under the impression PBO waived his citizenship prior to the age of 18 and then returned to the US and naturalized. LOL

  233. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 23, 2015 at 8:38 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Judicial officers and executive officers are bound to support the Constitution. If the President is ineligible, the judicial officers and executive officers, etc., must object to support the Constitution.

    The federal courts…can enjoin judicial officers and executive level officers from supporting an ineligible President

    I think you are arguing that the Constitution requires these oath-takers to support the Constitution in these ways, IF THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DECLARED INELIGIBLE, which has not happened with Obama.

    But that is only YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES. It would be the SCOTUS’ interpretation of the Constitution’s relevant language which would determine whether even that was required.

    You make the mistake of assuming your personal interpretation of the Constitution is infallible.

  234. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 1:21 am #

    bgansel9: 1.The president ISN’T inelgible
    2. Even if he were, you yourself stated that a court can’t make that decision, that Congress has to.Therefore, without a finding of ineligibility, no court is going to make any decisions regarding the officers of said president prior to a Congressional action. You are insane.

    3.The Constitution is being supported. I’m sorry that you are so lost in conspiracy theories that you have no clue how that actually works.

    But, I invite you to throw your hate(I mean your hat) into the birther lawsuit ring and see how you fare. LOL

    No, I didn’t state a court can’t make a decision on Obama’s eligibility. I said the court lacks authority to hear an eligibility case seeking removal of the President, a writ declaring the President ineligible, quo warranto, or a demand Congress investigate Obama’s eligibility.

    The court does have a authority to hear an eligibility case based on an Appointments Clause challenge or an Article VI challenge. Instead of the plaintiff seeking to remove the President or requesting the court take some adverse action against the President, the plaintiff should seek relief from the actions of executive level officers and judicial officers who support an ineligible President in violation of Article VI.

    In the Texas v. U.S. case, Judge Hanen issued a preliminary injunction against US federal officers for violation the APA. The APA is US federal law amended by an Act of Congress enacted into law by President Obama. Conspiracy to violate US law is an impeachable offense. Failure to impeach the President does not mean the law hasn’t been violated and does not preclude Judge Hanen from ordering adverse action against US federal officers. Even though conspiracy to violate US federal law is an impeachable offense, Judge Hanen is not constitutionally authorized to remove Obama without an impeachment in the House and a trial and conviction in the Senate. Judge Hanen is authorized to take adverse action against US federal officers for violations of the law even though Obama is immune.

    Obama is fulfilling the will of the majority. US federal officers are required to support the Constitution pursuant to Article VI. When the will of the majority conflicts with the Constitution, US federal officers lose immunity from prosecution if they do not object to violations of the Constitution by the President installed by the will of the majority.

    SCOTUS and numerous US federal officers have been put on notice the President is ineligible through the filing of lawsuits alleging ineligibility. Even though though those cases were dismissed before a decision on the merits could be determined, the notice of ineligibility stands. Once a federal court allows discovery, evidence is entered into record at trial, and a decision on the merits declares Obama eligible, then US federal officers will be immunized from adverse action.

    There is no statute of limitations on violations of the US Constitution. There is no immunity from prosecution for violations of the Constitution, except a sitting President can only be impeached and tried in the Senate. US federal officers waive any and all immunities for supporting an ineligible after notice of ineligibility. Claiming it wasn’t proven won’t suffice. Claiming they didn’t know won’t suffice. Defendants in Texas v. US didn’t know they had violated the APA until Judge Hanen ordered a preliminary injunction. Not knowing your violating Article VI doesn’t immunize from violations of the Constitution.

  235. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 1:45 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I can respect that. I assume, given that Obama is still in office, that the case didn’t come out the way you hoped.

    It didn’t work out for me, but it is important to note I did not seek the removal of Obama from office and that I respected the will of the majority of American voters to install an ineligible President into the Office of the President of the United States.

    I did seek relief for violations of my constitutional rights and to immunize myself from the laws, rules and regulations enacted into law by an ineligible President. I alleged Obama naturalized as a US citizen in 1983 and was ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States.

    Each time a US federal officer responded or denied or ignored my notice of presidential ineligibility; i.e. a judge, a DoJ lawyer, DHS lawyers or any other US federal officer, I objected to an Article VI or Appointments Clause violation by the US federal officer and requested a hearing on Obama’s ineligibility.

    My case was dismissed as frivolous without comment on my Appointments Clause or Article VI challenges. The same attack in the Fifth Circuit might be more successful.

  236. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 24, 2015 at 2:03 am #

    Who can be naturalized, who can be natural born citizens, who are the Naturels in Vattel.

    The 1790 Naturalization Act establied the rule who can be naturalized.

    White Folks.

    Congress is limited by the Constitution to the Naturalization of White people.

    What everyone missies is the real meaning of Natural, it’s a Kind.

    There’s many examples in literature the term natural is a kind.

    Natural born citizens are located in a country of their Kindred Blood. The Kindred blood of the Founders and Orginal Citizens.

    This message has has nothing to do with racism, it’s an attempt to show why the Founders used natural in natural born citizen and not simply born a citizen.

    The Founders wanted the country to be Homogeneous not Heterogeneous.

  237. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2015 at 2:18 am #

    Am I correct in assuming that possession of a US passport in your name (assuming the absence of forgery) is prima facie evidence of US citizenship?

    If so, Sven fails once again to explain how on Earth Obama could have been naturalized in 1983 when evidence shows he had a US passport in 1981.

  238. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2015 at 2:20 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Who can be naturalized, who can be natural born citizens, who are the Naturels in Vattel.

    The 1790 Naturalization Act establied the rule who can be naturalized.

    White Folks.

    Congress is limited by the Constitution to the Naturalization of White people.

    What everyone missies is the real meaning of Natural, it’s a Kind.

    There’s many examples in literature the term natural is a kind.

    Natural born citizens are located in a country of their Kindred Blood. The Kindred blood of the Founders and Orginal Citizens.

    This message has has nothing to do with racism, it’s an attempt to show why the Founders used natural in natural born citizen and not simply born a citizen.

    The Founders wanted the country to be Homogeneous not Heterogeneous.

    And there we go again, misusing/misquoting Vattel to justify the KKK agenda.

  239. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 24, 2015 at 2:25 am #

    Please excuse the typos, big fingers on a mini iPad keyboard. If I knew how to post images here I would gladly post the numerous screenshots I have collected over the years the meaning of natural.

    This meaning cannot be located unless natural is linked with Kind, Native, Gecynde. Cynde, Cynn, Cyn.

    Yes I’m the guy who discovered the real meaning of natural born citizen.

    My ancestors cry out to me. One who joined the 3rd Light Hussars in the Continental Army age 14.

  240. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2015 at 2:27 am #

    ObligedFriend: Who can be naturalized, who can be natural born citizens, who are the Naturels in Vattel.

    For the record, I hesitate to leave imbecilic facts go unchallenged, and I must point out that under a Vattelist system, Alexandre Davy de la Pailleterie (Alexandre Dumas’ father) who was a half-breed (white french father / black African slave mother) and could certainly not pass for a white man was considered from the moment he set foot on French soil a citoyen naturel and in fact rose to the position of general in the French army.

    Hence I see zero connection in Vattel and its application between natural citizenship and race.

    You may now put your hood back on.

  241. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 24, 2015 at 2:27 am #

    I am not a member of the KKK and have never been a member.

  242. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2015 at 2:28 am #

    ObligedFriend: Yes I’m the guy who discovered the real meaning of natural born citizen.

    You did not discover anything. You’re an ignorant, prejudiced buffoon.

  243. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2015 at 2:29 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    I am not a member of the KKK and have never been a member.

    You sure produce a good impersonation of one, since you obviously share the same ideology. Maybe you should join? Birds of a feather etc.

  244. avatar
    faceman February 24, 2015 at 7:19 am #

    SvenMagnussen:SCOTUS and numerous US federal officers have been put on notice the President is ineligible through the filing of lawsuits alleging ineligibility. Even though though those cases were dismissed before a decision on the merits could be determined, the notice of ineligibility stands. Once a federal court allows discovery, evidence is entered into record at trial, and a decision on the merits declares Obama eligible.

    Anyone can file a lawsuit, about anything. I could file a lawsuit claiming you are the offspring of a Martian and a baboon, and should be deported. And that lawsuit would be rightly dismissed as being without merit, without getting to the discovery stage. Does that mean that because a lawsuit WAS FILED, that you are ineligible to be president?

    Then, you left out another important ‘IF’: “IF a decision on the merits declares Obama ineligible.” Even if you could prove standing, more likely a judge would issue a summary judgment since there is absolutely no evidence supporting your position while there is the prima facie evidence of the birth certificate. “We’ll find it when we get to discovery” doesn’t cut it. You have to have SOMETHING first, before it gets to the discovery stage. Unless, you have that proof of naturalization in 1983 that you’re always talking about, but never show anyone?

  245. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2015 at 7:42 am #

    faceman: Unless, you have that proof of naturalization in 1983 that you’re always talking about, but never show anyone?

    A so-called proof that flies against the fact Obama had a US passport before 1983. Sven is totally making it up.

  246. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 24, 2015 at 8:08 am #

    Funny, you give a very good impression of one.

    There is nothing in the constitution that limits or limited citizenship to any race, so you are wrong there. The original document is mute on that subject as it is on so many other things, like voting age and sex of voters, as that was left to the states. The only thing it does say is that if you are born here you are considered a natural born citizen. The Congress of the era passed a law limiting who could become a citizen, and which has been changed many times since. Just for completeness, the control over voting age and sex was stripped from the states by constitutional amendment.

    ObligedFriend:
    I am not a member of the KKK and have never been a member.

  247. avatar
    faceman February 24, 2015 at 9:17 am #

    Lupin: A so-called proof that flies against the fact Obama had a US passport before 1983. Sven is totally making it up.

    This I know. I meant it in a sarcastic manner.

  248. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 9:20 am #

    ObligedFriend: Yes I’m the guy who discovered the real meaning of natural born citizen.

    Apparently you are under the impression that Vattel is new material to those of us who frequent this site.

    Please tell me what Vattel says about nations who chose their citizens based on Jus Soli law. Apparently you didn’t read that far into Vattel. You perused it looking for the damning evidence you wanted, but you didn’t actually READ it.

    U.S. Code, Title VIII, Section 1401(a) states that babies born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens at birth. Obama was born in a state that had already been admitted into the union, so, sorry, but you’re wrong.

    Perhaps you should peruse the articles on this site before you consider that you have some great knowledge that we don’t know about:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/de-vattel-for-dummies/

    By the way, you should read all of U.S. Code, Title VIII, Section 1401, as there are several instances there where only one parent needs to be a U.S. Citizen for their child to also be one. The Jus Sanguines Law that Vattel wrote about doesn’t apply to the United States.

    May I also ask why you think a Swiss Philosopher gets to decide who a U.S. citizen (even who a Natural Born U.S. Citizen) is?

  249. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 9:22 am #

    faceman: Anyone can file a lawsuit, about anything.I could file a lawsuit claiming you are the offspring of a Martian and a baboon, and should be deported.And that lawsuit would be rightly dismissed as being without merit, without getting to the discovery stage.Does that mean that because a lawsuit WAS FILED, that you are ineligible to be president?

    Then, you left out another important ‘IF’:“IF a decision on the merits declares Obama ineligible.”Even if you could prove standing, more likely a judge would issue a summary judgment since there is absolutely no evidence supporting your position while there is the prima facie evidence of the birth certificate.“We’ll find it when we get to discovery” doesn’t cut it.You have to have SOMETHING first, before it gets to the discovery stage.Unless, you have that proof of naturalization in 1983 that you’re always talking about, but never show anyone?

    A federal judge is not constitutionally authorized to rule on the merits without it first being established there is a case or controversy the court is authorized to hear. All previous birther cases have been dismissed without a decision on the merits because the court is not authorized to hear a case or controversy whereby the relief sought will remove a sitting President, prevent a President-elect from taking office, declare a sitting President is ineligible, or demand Congress investigate the eligibility of a sitting President or President-elect.

    The federal courts are authorized to hear cases and controversies involving a US executive level officer bound by Article VI to support the Constitution. The federal courts can grant relief to a petitioner who is found to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that US executive level officers have been noticed and failed to support the Constitution after an ineligible President assumes office. A sitting President who violates the Constitution can only be held to account after impeachment in the House and a trial and conviction in the Senate. A sitting President cannot be held to account for violations of the Constitution on a decision on the merits by a federal judge.

    A birth certificate is evidence of a live birth in a particular place and time. An allegation the sitting President is a naturalized citizen and ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States is a controversy that should be resolved after discovery and a trial. Several internet savvy lawyers have unethically convinced you the controversy must be resolved before discovery can be begin. If that were true, they would call it “validation” of evidence submitted with a complaint and not discovery. Evidence of the allegations is obtained in discovery. As a matter of jurisprudence, federal judges ignore evidence submitted with a complaint because the allegations in a complaint are considered to be true until there is a decision on the merits. The federal court is primarily interested in primary sourced evidence. The US federal government and President Obama possess and control all the primary source evidence.

    The evidence in Obama’s case is particularly difficult because his certificate of loss of nationality and certificate of naturalization were cancelled in 2008 without his consent. That’s right. Obama did not petition the US government to cancel his CLN or certificate of naturalization. To date, Obama considers himself a naturalized US citizen and has and will continue to admit he naturalized if he is asked that question under oath. I could elaborate, but I would be jeopardizing the safety and welfare of a whistleblower who wants to remain anonymous but will testify if a federal judge will provide a protective order for the witness against the US federal government and US federal government contractors. The whistleblower is not afraid of Obama. Obama is not concerned if his naturalization status is exposed because he is only threatened by impeachment and trial and conviction in the Senate. The whistleblower is afraid of executive level US federal officers, i.e. federal judges, lawyers for DoJ, DHS, and others.

  250. avatar
    faceman February 24, 2015 at 9:24 am #

    ObligedFriend: Who can be naturalized, who can be natural born citizens, who are the Naturels in Vattel.The 1790 Naturalization Act establied the rule who can be naturalized.White Folks.Congress is limited by the Constitution to the Naturalization of White people.What everyone missies is the real meaning of Natural, it’s a Kind.There’s many examples in literature the term natural is a kind.Natural born citizens are located in a country of their Kindred Blood. The Kindred blood of the Founders and Orginal Citizens.This message has has nothing to do with racism, it’s an attempt to show why the Founders used natural in natural born citizen and not simply born a citizen.The Founders wanted the country to be Homogeneous not Heterogeneous.

    That was basically the reasoning behind the Dredd Scott decision. Even though, the Constitution never actually uses the word ‘White’. On the other hand, the Amendment passed in response to Dredd Scott specifically states “All persons…” Note: it does not say ‘All white persons….’
    Or are you one of those people who believe that blacks are not people? As my friend Lupin points out – that would be the position of someone in the KKK.

  251. avatar
    John Reilly February 24, 2015 at 9:26 am #

    SvenMagnussen: It didn’t work out for me, but it is important to note I did not seek the removal of Obama from office and that I respected the will of the majority of American voters to install an ineligible President into the Office of the President of the United States.
    I did seek relief for violations of my constitutional rights and to immunize myself from the laws, rules and regulations enacted into law by an ineligible President. I alleged Obama naturalized as a US citizen in 1983 and was ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States.
    Each time a US federal officer responded or denied or ignored my notice of presidential ineligibility; i.e. a judge, a DoJ lawyer, DHS lawyers or any other US federal officer, I objected to an Article VI or Appointments Clause violation by the US federal officer and requested a hearing on Obama’s ineligibility.
    My case was dismissed as frivolous without comment on my Appointments Clause or Article VI challenges. The same attack in the Fifth Circuit might be more successful.

    IANAL, but if I understand Sven correctly, the President, the Supreme Court, and the President’s appointees, are now on double secret probation.

  252. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 9:28 am #

    SvenMagnussen: A federal judge is not constitutionally authorized to rule on the merits without it first being established there is a case or controversy the court is authorized to hear.

    We did this circle jerk yesterday. Until Congress takes action, no judge is going to touch either Obama OR his officers… but if you want to file a lawsuit and watch how this works, be my guest.

  253. avatar
    John Reilly February 24, 2015 at 9:30 am #

    ObligedFriend: Who can be naturalized, who can be natural born citizens, who are the Naturels in Vattel.
    The 1790 Naturalization Act establied the rule who can be naturalized.
    White Folks.
    Congress is limited by the Constitution to the Naturalization of White people.
    What everyone missies is the real meaning of Natural, it’s a Kind.
    There’s many examples in literature the term natural is a kind.
    Natural born citizens are located in a country of their Kindred Blood. The Kindred blood of the Founders and Orginal Citizens.
    This message has has nothing to do with racism, it’s an attempt to show why the Founders used natural in natural born citizen and not simply born a citizen.
    The Founders wanted the country to be Homogeneous not Heterogeneous.

    IANAL, but if I understand the rule of law you are describing it is that whatever Congress passed in 1790 remains binding today.

    Please, do file suit urging that only white people can be natural born citizens. Let us know how that turns out for you. I’m sure Doc will be kind enough to post a link for all of us to read your complaint and the decision of the Court.

  254. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 9:43 am #

    Lupin: A so-called proof that flies against the fact Obama had a US passport before 1983. Sven is totally making it up.

    A case and controversy is resolved after a trial and not before the trial.

    For example:

    You state Obama had a US passport before 1983 and you can prove it or call witnesses who can prove it. I state Obama naturalized in 1983 and used his Indonesian passport, green card, and a travel authorization re-entry permit issued to him before he left the US to travel internationally. I state I can obtain primary sourced evidence possessed and controlled by the US federal government if discovery is allowed. If the US government answers a subpoena for records by stating the documents do not exists, I can call rebuttal witnesses to prove they are lying. Rebuttal witnesses are not identified or exposed to the defense before trial as a matter of jurisprudence.

    Internet savvy lawyers have unethically convinced you rebuttal witnesses must be exposed before discovery can begin. Not true. Rebuttal witnesses are not exposed until the day of trial. The court operates under the assumption allegations made in the complaint are true until a decision on the merits of the allegations is made. There must be a controversy or the court is not authorized to hear the case, i.e. Obama naturalized in 1983 v. Obama used a US passport in France in 1981.

  255. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2015 at 9:59 am #

    SvenMagnussen: A case and controversy is resolved after a trial and not before the trial.

    For example:

    You state Obama had a US passport before 1983 and you can prove it or call witnesses who can prove it. I state Obama naturalized in 1983 and used his Indonesian passport, green card, and a travel authorization re-entry permit issued to him before he left the US to travel internationally. I state I can obtain primary sourced evidence possessed and controlled by the US federal government if discovery is allowed. If the US government answers a subpoena for records by stating the documents do not exists, I can call rebuttal witnesses to prove they are lying. Rebuttal witnesses are not identified or exposed to the defense before trial as a matter of jurisprudence.

    Internet savvy lawyers have unethically convinced you rebuttal witnesses must be exposed before discovery can begin. Not true. Rebuttal witnesses are not exposed until the day of trial. The court operates under the assumption allegations made in the complaint are true until a decision on the merits of the allegations is made. There must be a controversy or the court is not authorized to hear the case, i.e. Obama naturalized in 1983 v. Obama used a US passport in France in 1981.

    No, there is no trial, not even a charge, when the claim is patently ridiculous and incontrovertible evidence exists in plain sight to debunk it.

    In real life, if i accuse you of robbing the First National Bank of Podunk at 8 pm (assuming the Bank got robbed at that time) but the cops see you appear on live TV at exactly the same time on the LOONY LOOPY show, they might charge ME for obstruction of justice (ie wasting their time), but they will never ever charge you. The matter will never ever come to court. There will be no investigation concerning you.

    Obama holding a US passport in 1981 is exactly the same thing: it is prima facie evidence that you’re lying.

    Obviously, when you made up your lie about him being naturalized in 1983, you either did not know that he traveled abroad, more specifically to Europe, while in college a couple of years before, or it didn’t occur to you to check the details. I don’t know which.

    But if you had done so, you’d have realized Obama had a US passport at that point in his life, and you would have saved yourself the ridicule and shame of being exposed publicly as a liar.

  256. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 10:02 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I state Obama naturalized in 1983 and used his Indonesian passport, green card, and a travel authorization re-entry permit issued to him before he left the US to travel internationally.

    Proof of this naturalization? Cite the case number please. Also, can you show proof of an Indonesian passport?

  257. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2015 at 10:07 am #

    bgansel9: May I also ask why you think a Swiss Philosopher gets to decide who a U.S. citizen (even who a Natural Born U.S. Citizen) is?

    In this case he is also wrong in terms of how it was applied THEN to so-called Vattelist countries. See my example about Dumas’ father.

    Further, why this crazy notion that something written in the 1750s should apply verbatim ANYWHERE????

    From Vattel to the Napoleonic code of 1804 to the French Legal system of 2015, many many things have changed and evolved — as they have in every other country. The notion that somehow we should use 18th century rules to analyze a 20th century citizenship issue is ridiculous from the very start.

    Vattel’s notion of citizenship transmitted only by the father was already amended in mid-19th century France. Why on Earth should it still apply to 1961 US of A?

  258. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 10:11 am #

    bgansel9: We did this circle jerk yesterday.Until Congress takes action, no judge is going to touch either Obama OR his officers… but if you want to file a lawsuit and watch how this works, be my guest.

    The Congress and the President are servants of the States and the People. The majority of States and the People have decided to install an ineligible President. The federal courts are oath bound to support the Constitution regardless of the will of the majority.

    In my case, I specifically stated I was not seeking removal of Obama and respected the right of the majority to install an ineligible President. I requested relief for myself because I object to violations of the US Constitution.

    To my knowledge, it was the first time the court was noticed an appointee of Obama was in violation of the Appointments Clause and Sovereign Immunity had been waived after an ineligible President had been installed. Appointments Clause challenges and Sovereign Immunity challenges are always resolved before a motion to dismiss.

    Another judge in another judge district could be helpful. Judge Hanen, in the Fifth Circuit, enjoined all US federal officers after a violation of the APA after Judge Howell in the District of Columbia dismissed a similar case for standing.

  259. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 10:11 am #

    Sven, you think you’re going to present the evidence you need in rebuttal? LOL

    “The proper function of rebuttal evidence is to contradict, impeach or defuse the impact of the evidence offered by an adverse party.” Peals, 535 F.3d at 630 (quoting United States v. Grintjes, 237 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Under this standard, “Testimony offered only as additional support to an argument made in a case in chief, if not offered ‘to contradict, impeach or defuse the impact of the evidence offered by an adverse party,’ is improper on rebuttal.” Peals, 535 F.3d at 630 (quoting Grintjes, 237 F.3d at 879). On the record, the trial court did not err.” – http://federalevidence.com/blog/2008/august/%E2%80%9Crebuttal%E2%80%9D-witness-cannot-be-used-clarify-evidence-offered-case-chief

    Also, IANAL, but, it appears Rebuttal Witnesses must be disclosed prior to rebuttal: http://www.lacba.org/Files/LAL/Vol36No7/3082.pdf

  260. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 10:13 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The Congress and the President are servants of the States and the People.

    Without Congressional oversight making a determination that a law has been broken (Obama not being eligible for office) NOTHING is going to happen.

  261. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 10:15 am #

    SvenMagnussen: In my case, I specifically stated I was not seeking removal of Obama and respected the right of the majority to install an ineligible President. I requested relief for myself because I object to violations of the US Constitution.

    And what was the outcome of that case, Sven?

  262. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 10:17 am #

    Lupin: Further, why this crazy notion that something written in the 1750s should apply verbatim ANYWHERE????

    From Vattel to the Napoleonic code of 1804 to the French Legal system of 2015, many many things have changed and evolved — as they have in every other country. The notion that somehow we should use 18th century rules to analyze a 20th century citizenship issue is ridiculous from the very start.

    Vattel’s notion of citizenship transmitted only by the father was already amended in mid-19th century France. Why on Earth should it still apply to 1961 US of A?

    Great point, Lupin. Thanks!

  263. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2015 at 10:20 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I state Obama naturalized in 1983 and used his Indonesian passport, green card, and a travel authorization re-entry permit issued to him before he left the US to travel internationally.

    That is not possible. And you’re confusing US immigration requirements (” travel authorization re-entry permit”) with European ones.

    Let me go through this again:

    In 1981, if you were traveling to any EEC country under an Indonesian passport, whether or not you had a US green card, which in this case would have been totally irrelevant, you needed a visa.

    Such visas were (and are) normally delivered by the Embassy or Consulate of the country you plan to visit in your home country.

    It works both ways, BTW: that’s why many foreigners have to return to their home country in order to get the proper visas there, before returning to the United States. For a Frenchman in the US, it means returning to France and getting his documents from the US Embassy in Paris. I used to sponsor foreign artists wishing to perform etc. in the US so I know this very well.

    I’m not saying exceptions aren’t made. Sometimes you (or more likely your immigration attorney) might convince the authorities to let you pick your visa in a more easily reachable place, such as Calgary, if you’re trying for a US visa. I’m not aware of any French case in which the french made this kind of exception. In fact, if you live in Texas, the San Francisco consulate will even insist you get your papers from the Houston consulate. It’s that compartmentalized.

    In any event, i hardly doubt that an exception would have been made for an ordinary student / tourist which is what Obama was at the time. So if Obama planned to travel under an Indonesian passport, HE HAD TO GO BACK TO INDONESIA TO PICK UP HIS VISA. There is NO alternative.

    That via would have been valid for only 6 months, so based on his summer of 81` visit, it means it would have had to be issued in the first 6 months of 1981, not earlier, not later.

    Based on Obama’s travel record, we know that did not happen. QED.

  264. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 11:25 am #

    bgansel9:
    Sven, you think you’re going to present the evidence you need in rebuttal? LOL

    “The proper function of rebuttal evidence is to contradict, impeach or defuse the impact of the evidence offered by an adverse party.” Peals, 535 F.3d at 630 (quoting United States v. Grintjes, 237 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Under this standard, “Testimony offered only as additional support to an argument made in a case in chief, if not offered ‘to contradict, impeach or defuse the impact of the evidence offered by an adverse party,’ is improper on rebuttal.” Peals, 535 F.3d at 630 (quoting Grintjes, 237 F.3d at 879). On the record, the trial court did not err.”– http://federalevidence.com/blog/2008/august/%E2%80%9Crebuttal%E2%80%9D-witness-cannot-be-used-clarify-evidence-offered-case-chief

    Also, IANAL, but, it appears Rebuttal Witnesses must be disclosed prior to rebuttal: http://www.lacba.org/Files/LAL/Vol36No7/3082.pdf

    My rebuttal witnesses would only be called if the US federal government denied Obama naturalized in 1983, Obama’s CLN was cancelled in 2008, and Obama’s certificate of naturalization was cancelled in 2008. The rebuttal witnesses would only impeach testimony by the US federal government that Obama’s records for naturalization did not exist or could not be found.

    The rest of your post is about expert rebuttal witnesses. Experts do not have secondary evidence to impeach primary evidence that the defense alleges that it cannot be found or does not exist. Experts testify about their field of expertise.

    It is not necessary to contradict the defense’s answer with alternative evidence. The plaintiff is only required to support their allegations after the defendant answers. In Lupins example, I am not required to entered evidence Obama used an Indonesian passport and a green card to contradict Lupin’s evidence. A jury will decide which allegations are meritorious by a preponderance of the evidence.

    For example, the defendant answers that they did not naturalize in 1983 and used a US passport in France in 1981. After discovery, it is determined all records maintained and controlled by the US federal government on Obama’s naturalization never existed or couldn’t be found. I inform the court I have rebuttal witnesses. The rebuttal witnesses are not experts in the field naturalization, but do have secondary evidence to prove Obama naturalized in 1983, i.e. a video tape of Obama stating an oath of allegiance at a naturalization ceremony at The Shriner’s Auditorium, Los Angeles, CA, September 16, 1983. Since the rebuttal witnesses are in possession of secondary evidence and not expert witnesses, they are not revealed until the day of the trial.

    Lupin’s testimony and evidence is unimpeached. A jury will be decide which allegation has merit and may never resolve Lupin’s contradictory evidence. Or they may decide the video tape is a fake and decide the allegations do not have merit.

  265. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 11:45 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The rebuttal witnesses would only impeach testimony by the US federal government that Obama’s records for naturalization did not exist or could not be found.

    Please provide the case number of the document you would use and do you plan to file this suit? I would be much interested in following it so I can point and laugh when you fail.

    Also, if you are not using Expert Rebuttal Witnesses, who are you planning to use? Would someone who has possession of the document and chain of custody of the document not be needed? Or do you plan to forge Naturalization papers? You should contact Nancy, I’m sure she’d be willing to do it.

  266. avatar
    faceman February 24, 2015 at 12:05 pm #

    As plaintiff, the BURDEN OF PROOF would be on you to prove Obama was traveling on an Indonesian passport. The defense would then be able to call a rebuttal witness. Both sides need to submit a list of potential witnesses prior to the trial’s start.

    A ‘Surprise’ witness, what you seem to refer to as a rebuttal witness, is generally frowned upon during a trial, and there would have to be justification for allowing one to testify (such as new information became only came to light after the start of the trial). If you already have the information in hand but chose not to disclose it prior to the beginning of the trial, it is unlikely that the evidence would be admissible. At best, you might be able to get a mistrial.

  267. avatar
    Jim February 24, 2015 at 12:11 pm #

    Sven: “My rebuttal witnesses would only be called if the US federal government denied Obama naturalized in 1983, Obama’s CLN was cancelled in 2008, and Obama’s certificate of naturalization was cancelled in 2008.”

    So your latest wet dream is that the President isn’t even a citizen? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  268. avatar
    y_p_w February 24, 2015 at 12:12 pm #

    Lupin:

    In 1981, if you were traveling to any EEC country under an Indonesian passport, whether or not you had a US green card, which in this case would have been totally irrelevant, you needed a visa.

    Such visas were (and are) normally delivered by the Embassy or Consulate of the country you plan to visit in your home country.

    Well – I think there might be different rules depending on which country. However, you’re certainly correct that a green card is generally useless outside of the Western Hemisphere. Someone can return to the US by air with a green card and foreign passport, but the green card is meaningless if they’re traveling to (let’s say) France. A green card alone could be used to travel on a Caribbean cruise though.

    I know someone who was a citizen of the Republic of China (Taiwan) on vacation in Australia with his family when they decided to visit New Zealand. The rest of his family were naturalized US citizens and needed no visa for a short stay, as US citizens were granted a 30 day visitor permit at the port of entry. This ROC citizen needed a visa and obtained it at the NZ consulate in Sydney.

    He also had visited Hong Kong several times when it was under British rule. He obtained visas at British consulates in the US. For one there were no diplomatic relations between the UK and ROC government at the time, and in any case it was far more convenient to not mail his passport overseas to obtain a visa. It was also odd since the British consulate in San Francisco stopped issuing Hong Kong visas and referred anyone to the consulate in Los Angeles.

    Perhaps these are specific cases, but I was under the impression that consulates often had a broad authority to issue visas regardless of the nationality or the location of the consulate. This would be very important in the United States given how many permanent residents live here.

  269. avatar
    ballantine February 24, 2015 at 12:15 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: My rebuttal witnesses would only be called if the US federal government denied Obama naturalized in 1983, Obama’s CLN was cancelled in 2008, and Obama’s certificate of naturalization was cancelled in 2008. The rebuttal witnesses would only impeach testimony by the US federal government that Obama’s records for naturalization did not exist or could not be found.

    What planet are you on? You won’t survive summary judgment and get to trial unless you can provide some evidence to support your claim after discovery. And you won’t get to discovery unless you can come up with a recognized standing argument and a recognized cause of action, which you cannot. And, no one believes you have a video of Obama being naturalized.

  270. avatar
    y_p_w February 24, 2015 at 12:36 pm #

    y_p_w: Well – I think there might be different rules depending on which country.However, you’re certainly correct that a green card is generally useless outside of the Western Hemisphere.Someone can return to the US by air with a green card and foreign passport, but the green card is meaningless if they’re traveling to (let’s say) France.A green card alone could be used to travel on a Caribbean cruise though.

    I started thinking about it, and there might be some cases where a green card might come in handy. I understand that transiting through some place like the UK is easier with a valid endorsement that one is entitled to stay in the US. I’ve read about Indian nationals who had to return to India to renew their expired work permits in the US (it’s very complex). Then it got interesting when they transited through the UK because they no longer had a valid endorsement to stay in the US. scheduled maybe a one day layover, and didn’t realize that they needed a transit visa before leaving the airport. I believe an Indian national with a green card would have no issues transiting through the UK, although they’d probably need a visitor’s visa to stay there for any substantial time.

    https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y/india/transit/yes

    You might be eligible for ‘transit without visa’ if:

    *you arrive and depart by air

    One of the following must also apply:

    *you have a valid USA permanent residence card issued by the USA on or after 21 April 1998

    *you have a valid USA I-551 Temporary Immigrant visa issued by the USA (a wet-ink stamp version will not be accepted)

    *you have an expired USA I-551 Permanent Residence card issued by the USA on or after 21 April 1998, with a valid I-797 letter authorising extension

    you have a valid standalone US Immigration Form 155A/155B issued by the USA (attached to a sealed brown envelope)

    The cases I’ve heard of where where someone was trying to renew the temporary immigrant visa.

  271. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 24, 2015 at 12:39 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The federal courts are oath bound to support the Constitution

    Yes, but the ONLY way they can fulfill that pledge CONSTITUTIONALLY, is to support the current OFFICIAL interpretation of the Constitution as they understand it, not YOUR PERSONAL CONFLICTING interpretation with all of the legal consequences YOU then claim must stream from THAT personal interpretation!

    If you were one of a million persons, each basing your personal complaint on a million unique personal interpretations of the same provision of the Constitution, all differing from the OFFICIAL interpretation, no oath-taker would be thereby obliged to adopt any one alternate interpretation, nor even consider it as an alternative, except where a court saw its implication qualifying as a “case or controversy” or where the Congress could be by the logic of a particular complaint, lobbied into using its Constitutional power over the President to end or prevent a Presidency for which no other suppressing solution existed under the CURRENT OFFICIAL interpretation of the Constitution.

    You wrote:”The Congress and the President are servants of the States and the People.”

    True!

    But then you wrote:” The majority of States and the People have decided to install an ineligible President.”

    That is just your PERSONAL opinion. Currently, no OFFICIAL Constitutional obligation or conclusion streams from it.

    You wrote: “The federal courts are oath bound to support the Constitution regardless of the will of the majority.”

    Yes, bound to support the OFFICIAL interpretation of the Constitution as they understand it – NOT MY OR YOUR DIFFERING INTERPRETATION!

    You wrote:” I requested relief for myself because I object to violations of the US Constitution.”

    Again. if a million persons object to what THEY BELIEVE are unique “violations” of THEIR OWN PRIVATE interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, they are not entitled to relief.

  272. avatar
    Rickey February 24, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

    ballantine: .And, no one believes you have a video of Obama being naturalized.

    Sven apparently is confusing Obama with Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was naturalized at the Shrine Auditorium (not “Shriner’s” Auditorium) on September 16, 1983. Or, more likely, Sven read about Schwarzenegger’s naturalization so he picked that date for Obama’s supposed naturalization.

    More than 2000 people were naturalized during that ceremony.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/17/us/actor-becomes-us-citizen.html

  273. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 24, 2015 at 2:05 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: My rebuttal witnesses would only be called if the US federal government denied Obama naturalized in 1983

    —–
    I’ll ask you again: What evidence would you present during your case-in-chief?

  274. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 2:09 pm #

    ballantine: What planet are you on?You won’t survive summary judgment and get to trial unless you can provide some evidence to support your claim after discovery. And you won’t get to discovery unless you can come up with a recognized standing argument and a recognized cause of action, which you cannot.And, no one believes you have a video of Obama being naturalized.

    Alright, let’s say the AUSA submits a affidavit from a US executive level officer with USCIS that has sworn a search was conducted and a certificate of naturalization allegedly issued to Barack Hussein Obama, II was not found and never existed. The AUSA moves the court for summary judgment on the facts submitted.

    I answer the American people, by a majority vote in the Electoral College, have wilfully or unintentionally, voted to elect an ineligible President and there is no federal mechanism to prevent an ineligible President from assuming office. Sovereign immunity and any other immunity asserted by executive level US federal officers has been waived after notice of the President’s ineligibility and a refusal to object to a violation of the US Constitution. All executive level US federal officers support an ineligible President and have a vested interest in covering up Obama’s ineligibility.

    I object to the appointments made by the ineligible President as a violation of the Appointments Clause and request the entry of appearance and all pleadings submitted by the AUSA on behalf of the appointed USA or hold a hearing on the eligibility of the President of the United States. Further, I object to the sworn affidavit by the US executive level officer of the USCIS after an appointment by an ineligible President in violation of the Appointments Clause.

    Further, the FRCP and FRE were amended under the delegation of authority doctrine prescribed by the Judiciary Act. The Supreme Court orders amendments, deletions and additions after a vote with two Associate Justices appointed by Obama participating. Those Associates Justices assumed their seats on SCOTUS after a violation of the Appointments Clause due to appointments made by an ineligible President. Summary Judgment is governed by Rule 56 of the FRCP. Rule 56 was amended in 2009 and 2010. FRCP rules are US law enacted into law by the President pursuant to the Presentment Clause. The Presentment Clause is violated when an ineligible President enacts a Congressional Act into law.

    Further, I object to the Archivist of the United States, another appointee of Obama who assumed their office after a violation of the Appointments Clause. The Archivist of the United States holds all US federal law, rules, and regulations in trust as evidence of law. The evidence of law is tainted after the Archivist was appointed by an ineligible President.

    And last, but certainly not least, I provide notice to the judge President Obama naturalized in 1983 and is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United. As such, I suggest the judge recuse and transfer the case to retired judge that was not in service on January 20, 2009 so an impartial jurist can investigate the allegation President Obama naturalized in 1983, sua sponte. In the interest jurisprudence, I suggest the judge depose President Obama and ask him specifically if he filed a notice of intent to naturalize in the USDC CDC, 1981, and a petition for naturalization in the USDC CDC, 1983.

    President Obama was put in place by a majority vote and can only be adversely impacted by impeachment and a trial in the Senate. Judicial officers and all other executive level officers of the US federal government appear to have a personal stake in the outcome of the trial and cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. President Obama will not be adversely impacted without an impeachment and trial in the Senate and should be deposed by an impartial jurist who does not have a personal stake in the outcome of the trial.

  275. avatar
    Nancy R Owens February 24, 2015 at 2:16 pm #

    Yes, I would. My phone number is 813-644-7969. I am being protected so I have no concerns about sharing this with you.

    The mailman is from Clewiston, Fl. Not Chicago as Corsi claims.

    bgansel9: Please provide the case number of the document you would use and do you plan to file this suit? I would be much interested in following it so I can point and laugh when you fail.

    Also, if you are not using Expert Rebuttal Witnesses, who are you planning to use?Would someone who has possession of the document and chain of custody of the document not be needed? Or do you plan to forge Naturalization papers? You should contact Nancy, I’m sure she’d be willing to do it.

  276. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 2:17 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In my case, I specifically stated I was not seeking removal of Obama and respected the right of the majority to install an ineligible President. I requested relief for myself because I object to violations of the US Constitution.

    You said yesterday that you could get his officers removed because you believe he is ineligible and all court personnel have a duty to uphold the Constitution. Don’t misrepresent what you stated yesterday.

    This is you on February 18th, Sven: “Comey hasn’t responded in a time frame that I feel is appropriate. In addition to my allegation Obama naturalized in 1983 and is ineligible, I notified Comey I objected to appointments of US federal officers as a violation of the Appointments Clause. Comey was appointed by Obama.”

    You have talked about the Officers appointed so many times I’m not going to post them all. This was you yesterday: “My case is distinguishable from previous eligibility cases because it seeks relief and an exemption from the destruction of the constitutional republic. Obama is fulfilling the will of the American people. Appointees, contractors, subcontractors, and career federal employees in executive management are required, pursuant to Article VI, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is the appointees and other US federal executive level officers who are in jeopardy of adverse action for not defending the Constitution against mob tyranny.”

    This was also you, yesterday: “Orly should object to the appointments of Johnson and Burwell as a violation of the Appointments Clause and Article VI and seek relief from the actions of those appointees for not supporting the Constitution after an ineligible President assumes the office.

    Of course, Johnson and Burwell will scream about Absolute Immunity, Sovereign Immunity and whatever other immunity they can dream up to justify violations of the Constitution. Orly should then request a hearing before Judge Hanen to determine Obama’s eligibility to see if Johnson and Burwell are entitled to any immunity for supporting an ineligible President.”

    So, today you’re all about personal objection but yesterday you were all about removing Obama’s appointees because of his lack of eligibility (except that the only person in a courtroom who would see it that way is YOU!)

    Also, I asked you earlier, how did your earlier case work out? You never answered. What was the final disposition of the case, Sven? I’m asking again for the second time. Answer me, please.

  277. avatar
    Arthur B. February 24, 2015 at 2:23 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: And last, but certainly not least, I provide notice to the judge President Obama naturalized in 1983…

    Yes, certainly not least!

    If by “provid[ing] notice” you are talking about simply asserting it, as you have done repeatedly here and elsewhere, you will accomplish exactly nothing, and your case will be laughed out of court.

    Now if you’ve got legally admissible evidence of his naturalization — well, that’s a different story.

    So tell us, Sven, why should we believe you’ve got the goods?

  278. avatar
    Nancy R Owens February 24, 2015 at 2:26 pm #

    *reading Sven’s info* Oh, never mind. This is full of disinformation.

    SvenMagnussen: A case and controversy is resolved after a trial and not before the trial.

    For example:

    You state Obama had a US passport before 1983 and you can prove it or call witnesses who can prove it. I state Obama naturalized in 1983 and used his Indonesian passport, green card, and a travel authorization re-entry permit issued to him before he left the US to travel internationally. I state I can obtain primary sourced evidence possessed and controlled by the US federal government if discovery is allowed. If the US government answers a subpoena for records by stating the documents do not exists, I can call rebuttal witnesses to prove they are lying. Rebuttal witnesses are not identified or exposed to the defense before trial as a matter of jurisprudence.

    Internet savvy lawyers have unethically convinced you rebuttal witnesses must be exposed before discovery can begin. Not true. Rebuttal witnesses are not exposed until the day of trial. The court operates under the assumption allegations made in the complaint are true until a decision on the merits of the allegations is made. There must be a controversy or the court is not authorized to hear the case, i.e. Obama naturalized in 1983 v. Obama used a US passport in France in 1981.

  279. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 2:30 pm #

    ObligedFriend: The 1790 Naturalization Act establied the rule who can be naturalized.

    White Folks.

    You know, in 1790, women, like me, weren’t allowed to vote, yet here I sit looking at my voter registration card. Tell me how can that be if our laws are restricted to the understanding of our Constitution in 1790?

  280. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 2:36 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —–
    I’ll ask you again:What evidence would you present during your case-in-chief?

    I heard from one of my whistleblowers last night the harassment they believe that is related to Obama’s ineligibility had died down until yesterday. I’ve promised my whistleblowers I won’t expose them publicly to protect them. Yet, some of my whistleblowers believe the US federal government knows who they are and will hurt them, fire them or adversely impact them if they go public with their evidence.

    Why do you want me to expose them? They are afraid. I asked the judge in my case for an order of protection and he ignored me. It’s frightening that you want the patriots who are willing to tell the truth to be outed with no chance a federal judge will risk his/her career and reputation to support the Constitution.

  281. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 2:42 pm #

    Arthur B.: Yes, certainly not least!

    If by “provid[ing] notice” you are talking about simply asserting it, as you have done repeatedly here and elsewhere, you will accomplish exactly nothing, and your case will be laughed out of court.

    Now if you’ve got legally admissible evidence of his naturalization — well, that’s a different story.

    So tell us, Sven, why should we believe you’ve got the goods?

    Research Appointments Clause and Sovereign Immunity challenges. Notice is provided after the complaint alleging those challenges is filed and an executive level US federal officer files an entry of appearance.

  282. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I heard from one of my whistleblowers last night the harassment they believe that is related to Obama’s ineligibility had died down until yesterday. I’ve promised my whistleblowers I won’t expose them publicly to protect them. Yet, some of my whistleblowers believe the US federal government knows who they are and will hurt them, fire them or adversely impact them if they go public with their evidence.

    Why do you want me to expose them? They are afraid. I asked the judge in my case for an order of protection and he ignored me. It’s frightening that you want the patriots who are willing to tell the truth to be outed with no chance a federal judge will risk his/her career and reputation to support the Constitution.

    This is the most hilarious non-denial denial I’ve ever seen. LOL He has no case-in-chief, he cites “whistleblowers” as if they are going to be his evidence. LMAO Seriously Sven, you should take this show to a comedy stage, you’d probably do well there.

  283. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 24, 2015 at 2:46 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Why do you want me to expose them?

    —-
    I never said that I WANT you to expose people in danger. This has nothing to do with what I want.

    You are talking about going to trial. You are talking about rebuttal. But you haven’t talked about what evidence you would bring during your case-in-chief.

    So: what evidence you would bring during your case-in-chief?

  284. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 2:51 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Research Appointments Clause and Sovereign Immunity challenges. Notice is provided after the complaint alleging those challenges is filed and an executive level US federal officer files an entry of appearance.

    Why would you be presenting sovereign immunity challenges when these appointees are not looking at losing their jobs? LOL You assume they will scream about sovereign immunity, but, you seem to indicate that their jobs wouldn’t be threatened until after you WIN YOUR CASE, yet, you have presented NO CASE TO WIN!

  285. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 3:37 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    I never said that I WANT you to expose people in danger.This has nothing to do with what I want.

    You are talking about going to trial.You are talking about rebuttal.But you haven’t talked about what evidence you would bring during your case-in-chief.

    So:what evidence you would bring during your case-in-chief?

    The allegations are numerous; but primarily are that Obama filed a notice of intent to naturalize in USDC CDC, 1981, and petitioned the USDC CDC, 1983, for an order for the US federal government to issue a certificate of naturalization upon completion of statutory requirements to participate in a naturalization ceremony to take place on September 16, 1983, Shrine Auditorium, Los Angeles, California.

    Only the US federal government and Barack Hussein Obama, II, have access, possession and control of the primary sourced evidence. I have whistleblowers who will testify and offer evidence to rebut any claims the US federal government may make with respect inability to find Obama’s certificate of naturalization, petition for naturalization and notice of intent to naturalize filed by Obama.

    Without an order of protection, my whistleblowers are too afraid to publicly expose their potential testimony and evidence until they see a competent, engaged, patriotic jurist who seeks the truth concerning Obama’s current citizenship status. Before a order, opinion, pleading, affidavit, or any other filing from a judicial officer or executive level US federal officer is made, my whistleblowers would like to have a competent investigation into Obama’s current citizenship status conducted by someone other than a current US federal officer who has an vested interest in the outcome of the trial. Notice of an Appointment Clause and Sovereign Immunity and Absolute Immunity challenges have been noticed and ignored by US federal government officers from the Judicial Branch, Executive Branch and Legislative Branch. My whistleblowers would be most relieved and amendable to sworn, public testimony and disclosure of the secondary sourced evidence if those challenges were resolved by a judicial officer who had not and continues to not be in active service to the United States since January 20, 2009.

    Further, it was alleged and the court has been noticed the DoJ cancelled Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization in 2008. It’s reasonable to assume the lawyers for the DoJ appear to have a vested, personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings. At a minimum, the lawyers for the DoJ should not represent the United States in this matter.

  286. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 24, 2015 at 3:53 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The

    . . .

    —-
    So, in short, you do not plan to present any evidence during your case-in-chief.

  287. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 24, 2015 at 4:14 pm #

    J.D. Sue: . . .

    —-
    So, in short, you do not plan to present any evidence during your case-in-chief.

    I wouldn’t want to risk exposing my whistleblowers to harm. A presentation plan for evidence in my control would most certainly provide the judicial officers and executive level officers a lead on who my whistleblowers are and what evidence they have. Undoubtedly, my whistleblowers are afraid and will withdraw all participation without substantial progress exposing Obama’s current citizenship status from an impartial jurist who does not have a personal interest in the outcome of the trial.

    Allegations have been made concerning Obama’s ineligibility and Sovereign Immunity, Absolute Immunity and Judicial Immunity challenges have been filed in federal court. An entry of appearance has been filed by Executive Branch federal officers. Those challenges should be resolved by persons who do not have a vested, personal interest in the outcome of those challenges.

    Further, objections have been made and ignored concerning the FRCP and FRE after an allegation the Presentment Clause was violated after an ineligible President assumed the Office. Just like all of Executive Branch and Judicial Branch federal officers I’ve encountered before you, you insist I comply with the FRCP and FRE that I have objected to before there is a ruling on my objection. If the objection of overruled, I like a hearing on Obama’s current citizenship status without imposition of the current FRCP and FRE that I object to. It can be done. Cases and controversies were resolved by federal courts for many years before the FRCP and FRE were enacted into law.

  288. avatar
    Jim February 24, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

    Sven: “I wouldn’t want to risk exposing my whistleblowers to harm.”

    The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

  289. avatar
    Jim February 24, 2015 at 4:44 pm #

    BTW Sven, what relief are you hoping the court grants you if you win your case?

  290. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 5:07 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Yes, I would. My phone number is (redacted because this crazy woman doesn’t understand what danger she is to herself and others). I am being protected so I have no concerns about sharing this with you.

    Crazy witch, I asked for Sven to provide a case number for a document he states is in the National Archives. I don’t want your freaking phone number, go away!

    As for the mailman, I have no clue what you are talking about and I no longer care to correspond with you. Don’t reply to my posts.

  291. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 5:12 pm #

    Jim:
    Sven: “I wouldn’t want to risk exposing my whistleblowers to harm.”

    The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

    Sven wants a free ride all the way to VICTORY!

  292. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 24, 2015 at 5:25 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I wouldn’t want to risk exposing my whistleblowers to harm.

    In other words the whitstleblowers exist only in your imagination and you have no evidence to support any of your claims.

  293. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 24, 2015 at 5:27 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: Yes, I would. My phone number is

    No one asked for your phone number. If you’re as lonely as you make yourself out to be I’m sure there are plenty of convicts in the local prison looking for penpals. Maybe you should write to some?

  294. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 5:33 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: No one asked for your phone number. If you’re as lonely as you make yourself out to be I’m sure there are plenty of convicts in the local prison looking for penpals. Maybe you should write to some?

    Apparently she wants to forge Sven’s naturalization document. Hmmmm, we could have a federal crime in the works. LOL

  295. avatar
    Crustacean February 24, 2015 at 5:34 pm #

    It’s nice to have an exit strategy, eh Svenny? (all this goal-post moving is getting tedious, though, isn’t it?)

    Sorry, not buying it. If your alleged “whistleblowers” never appear, it simply means you are a lying sack of crap.

    (spoiler alert: Sven is a lying sack of crap).

    SvenMagnussen: my whistleblowers are afraid and will withdraw all participation without substantial progress exposing Obama’s current citizenship status from an impartial jurist who does not have a personal interest in the outcome of the trial.

  296. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 24, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

    So, Sven, now I understand what you want:

    You want to take discovery from defendant(s), but you want to keep your own evidence secret.

    You want a trial, but you don’t want to present any evidence to make your case.

    At trial, you don’t want a sitting judge, you want only a retired judge.

    At trial, you want government officials to be presumed to be liars.

    At trial, you want U.S. attorneys prohibited from representing the government.

    At trial, you want the rules of procedure and evidence to be suspended for your case.

    The relief you seek is an order declaring you immune from all U.S. law made in the last 6 years.

    Finally, though you’ll lose in the lower court, you think you have a better chance in 5th Circuit.

  297. avatar
    faceman February 24, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I wouldn’t want to risk exposing my whistleblowers to harm. A presentation plan for evidence in my control would most certainly provide the judicial officers and executive level officers a lead on who my whistleblowers are and what evidence they have. Undoubtedly, my whistleblowers are afraid and will withdraw all participation without substantial progress exposing Obama’s current citizenship status from an impartial jurist who does not have a personal interest in the outcome of the trial.

    Allegations have been made concerning Obama’s ineligibility and Sovereign Immunity, Absolute Immunity and Judicial Immunity challenges have been filed in federal court. An entry of appearance has been filed by Executive Branch federal officers. Those challenges should be resolved by persons who do not have a vested, personal interest in the outcome of those challenges.

    Further, objections have been made and ignored concerning the FRCP and FRE after anallegation the Presentment Clause was violated after an ineligible President assumed the Office. Just like all of Executive Branch and Judicial Branch federal officers I’ve encountered before you, you insist I comply with the FRCP and FRE that I have objected to before there is a ruling on my objection. If the objection of overruled, I like a hearing on Obama’s current citizenship status without imposition of the current FRCP and FRE that I object to. It can be done. Cases and controversies were resolved by federal courts for many years before the FRCP and FRE were enacted into law.

    “Allegations” or ‘Providing Notice’ are not evidence. If you don’t present any EVIDENCE, then the government/Obama (or whoever) won’t have to present any evidence to the contrary (nothing for them to rebut), and so your ‘rebuttal’ witnesses/whistleblowers won’t have any rebuttal to rebut themselves..

  298. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2015 at 6:11 pm #

    You know, it just occurred to me, Obama is going to be out of office in 23 months. How long would we have to wait to reasonably conclude that any litigation going to a federal court (J.D. Sue’s judge shopping comment above) would be litigated after Obama has left office? A year? Two years? Are we already past that point?

  299. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 24, 2015 at 10:50 pm #

    The 1790 Naturalization Act established the Rules for Naturalization in the U.S.

    “Any alien being a free white person to become a citizen after two years residence in the US.”

    My question: when was “free white person” superseded? It wasn’t the 1795 Act. If not 1795…when….

  300. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2015 at 12:48 am #

    ObligedFriend: My question: when was “free white person” superseded? It wasn’t the 1795 Act. If not 1795…when….

    Start your research here: US Immigration Acts

    I think you find that the answer is the 19th century for those descended from African ancestors. You’ll have to look into the 20th century for those descended from Asian ancestors.

  301. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2015 at 1:30 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Lupin’s testimony and evidence is unimpeached. A jury will be decide which allegation has merit and may never resolve Lupin’s contradictory evidence. Or they may decide the video tape is a fake and decide the allegations do not have merit.

    You crazy liar. You seem to believe I’m advocating on behalf of Obama. I’m not.

    In this case, I’m the non-interested bystander who merely points at the TV screen that shows the person you’re accusing of something committed at a certain time & place was in fact 10,000 miles away at the same time & place.

    In the judicial system you’re the one who’ll be charged with obstruction of justice or whatever term they use in the US for someone purposefully lying to the police by trying to get an innocent man charged.

  302. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2015 at 1:41 am #

    re visas etc.,

    For a Frenchman/woman who is already in the US, say, on a student visa, and needs to change visas, say, to a J-2, I can attest that the SOP will be for the INS to request that the person returns to France and the J-2 will be issued by the Paris Embassy.

    At least it was until about 2000.

    I can also attest that France requires a visa for all visitors EXCEPT:

    – Citizens from other UE, EEE countries + Switzerland
    – Citizens from :Albanie, Andorre, Antigua et Barbuda, Argentine, Bahamas, Barbade, Bosnie-et-Herzégovine, Brunei Darusalam, Canada, Chili, Costa Rica, Croatie, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Malaisie, Maurice, Monaco, Nicaragua, Nouvelle Zélande, Panama, Paraguay, Saint-Christophe et Nevis, Saint-Marin, Saint-Siège, Seychelles, Taïwan, Uruguay, Monténégro, ARYM et Serbie ;
    – Citizens from Australie, Brésil, Corée du Sud, Etats Unis, Japon, Mexique, Singapour, Venezuela.
    – certain passeports de la région administrative spéciale de Hong Kong (République Populaire de Chine) et de la région administrative spéciale de Macao (République Populaire de Chine) ;
    – les titulaires du passeport « British Nationals Overseas ».
    – Diplomats, consular officers, etc.

    Note that Indonesia is NOT on that list.

    I can also attest that for a visitor to France from a country for which France requires a visa, that visa can only be delivered in that country, ie: an Indonesian traveling to France cannot get a visa from the French Embassy in Washington. It has to be handled by the Embassy in Djakarta.

    Finally I can attest that the presence of absence of a so-called US ” green card” is deemed totally irrelevant to the process above. Something relevant is the existence of a biometric passport which is now required from some countries, not others, for example.

  303. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2015 at 2:23 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The allegations are numerous; but primarily are that Obama filed a notice of intent to naturalize in USDC CDC, 1981, and petitioned the USDC CDC, 1983, for an order for the US federal government to issue a certificate of naturalization upon completion of statutory requirements to participate in a naturalization ceremony to take place on September 16, 1983, Shrine Auditorium, Los Angeles, California.

    None of this is true. You are purposefully lying.

    The problem if, like most liars, you got tripped by a detail you forgot. You thought you could weasel your way through *US and indonesian citizenship laws (even though others here have demonstrated your theory is nonsense) but you forgot about Obama’s trip to Europe in 1981.

    Now you’re so invested in your lie that you’re doubling down, making up even more outrageous statements, when the truth is there plainly to see.

  304. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 25, 2015 at 3:05 am #

    The Naturalization Act 1798 changed US residency to 14 years, and added the requirement the ‘white alien’ must reside 5 years in the state application was made to the court.

    Free white alien was not superseded.

    Naturalization and Natural born citizens are limited to the same natural kind as the Founders,

    Since the Congress is limited by the Constitution to Naturalizing citizens, what is the 14th Amendment?

  305. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 25, 2015 at 4:26 am #

    Lupin: None of this is true. You are purposefully lying.

    The problem if, like most liars, you got tripped by a detail you forgot. You thought you could weasel your way through *US and indonesian citizenship laws (even though others here have demonstrated your theory is nonsense) but you forgot about Obama’s trip to Europe in 1981.

    Now you’re so invested in your lie that you’re doubling down, making up even more outrageous statements, when the truth is there plainly to see.

    Obama’s certificate of naturalization was administratively cancelled in 2008 by the DoJ. As pointed out earlier, Obots are proposing an executive level officer will enter an affidavit a search for Obama’s certificate of naturalization cannot be found and the case should be dismissed before discovery of the evidence possessed and controlled by the US federal government.

    Motions for summary judgment are governed by the FRCP. The FRCP is US law. Unless legislation is vetoed by the President, all US law is enacted by the President. Obama enacted amendments to the FRCP with respect to motions for summary judgement in 2009 and 2010. The Presentment Clause is violated when an ineligible President enacts US law. Motions for summary judgment by DoJ lawyers with a personal interest in the outcome of the trial should be stricken from the record.

    Other arbitrary impediments to reaching discovery are that I must prove Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii or lost his citizenship as a minor after a certified copy of Obama’s COLB is presented with an answer to the complaint and I must prove Obama didn’t have a US passport in 1981 because he would not have been issued a visa by France without a US passport. These are controversies the federal court is authorized to resolve if the plaintiff can establish a particularized harm entitling Plaintiff to the requested relief.

    Whether it was intentional or unintentional, the majority of American voters have installed an ineligible President into office to fundamentally change America. I proposed that my particular harm was that I am a minority American voter who objects to violations of the Constitution and sought relief in the form of an exemption from the laws, rules, regulations and appointments enacted by an ineligible President. I made a point to declare I was not seeking to have Obama removed from office.

    So, some ethically challenged internet lawyers are here to clear the air and let everyone know discovery can’t begin until I overcome with verifiable proof all the controversies established after selective public disclosure of Obama’s federal records. In fact, controversies are resolved by the court after discovery of the facts. Some controversies have conflicting facts; such as, Obama petitioned the USDC in 1983 to naturalize and Obama used a US passport in 1981 to obtain a visa to enter France. It is up to a jury to decide which fact has been established by a preponderance of the evidence not up to the plaintiff to prove the opposing side has been discredited.

    In order for the defendant to put forth their evidence Obama had a US passport in 1981, they’d have to call a witness to testify. On cross-examination, I’d ask the witness in front of a jury, “How do know Obama didn’t use a fake US passport?”

    While in discovery, I’d subpoena the State Department’s records for its estimates on the percentage of fake US passports used by foreign travelers in 1981. It generally runs about 15% to 25%. I’d ask the witness to examine the evidence discovered and explain to the jury how they know Obama didn’t use a fake passport. It is not proof that you demand, but it is all that the court requires.

  306. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2015 at 5:49 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    The Naturalization Act 1798 changed US residency to 14 years, and added the requirement the ‘white alien’ must reside 5 years in the state application was made to the court.

    Free white alien was not superseded.

    Dude, I showed you the way to find the information for yourself; but since you apparently don’t know how to read:

    Wikipedia: The Naturalization Act of 1870

    The Naturalization Act of 1870 (16 Stat. 254) was a United States federal law that created a system of controls for the naturalization process and penalties for fraudulent practices. It is also noted for extending the naturalization process to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.” Other non-whites were not included in this act and remained excluded from naturalization, per the Naturalization Act of 1790. The act of 1870 was passed by the 41st United States Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on July 14, 1870.

    Wikipedia: The Magnuson Act

    The Magnuson Act, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943, was immigration legislation proposed by U.S. Representative (later Senator) Warren G. Magnuson of Washington and signed into law on December 17, 1943 in the United States. It allowed Chinese immigration for the first time since the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and permitted some Chinese immigrants already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens. This marked the first time since the Naturalization Act of 1790 that any Asians were permitted to be naturalized.

    Those two acts can be researched further, Wikipedia gives only a summary.

    Naturalization and Natural born citizens are limited to the same natural kind as the Founders,

    Yeah? Sez who?

    Even if it were true, which it ain’t, all humans are the “same natural kind”. Period. One of the nations most sacred founding document even says so. I’m sure you’ll recognize the words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…

    Since the Congress is limited by the Constitution to Naturalizing citizens, what is the 14th Amendment?

    An amendment to the Constitution, a part of the Constitution, “valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution”. Amendments place the topic they address out of the realm of legislation, Congress cannot change a provision of the Constitution via legislation. It can legislate to implement the provisions, but it cannot change the provision itself.

    U.S. Constitution: Article 5

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    The first section of the 14th Amendment specifically repudiates the errors of the “Dred Scot v Sandford” Supreme Court Case, which I assume is the specific part you are asking about. The word ‘error’ here does not mean the Court made an error (though many folks think they did), but in the sense that whether or not SCOTUS got it right or wrong, it was not what “We The People” understood it should be. Common sense, justice, and right thinking KNEW that to be born in America meant you were a Natural Born Citizen. SCOTUS decided that was not the case, and again, right or wrong, they are the ultimate umpire according to the Constitution. Therefore, a Constitutional Amendment was required to overthrow that universally derided decision.

    The Amendment does not have anything to do with naturalization or Congressional duties or limitations, except to put it beyond the realm of mischievous interpretation that some class of natural born citizens can be treated as excluded from citizenship. It does not have any affect on the various Immigration Acts passed by Congress except by naming a particular class of folks who are not subject to those Immigration Acts because they are Born Citizens (naturally!).

    Amendment 14, Section 1

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    The phrase “All persons born… in the United States” indicates the class of persons that Congress has no need of naturalization authority to make into a citizen. They are natural born citizens and do not need to be naturalized. That was always the case in America. Dred Scott introduced an unwelcome bar to those descended from African ancestors, so the 14th corrected the error, and did not affect the power of Congress to legislate for naturalization in any way.

    The phrase “or naturalized in the United States” does not affect the power of Congress to legislate for naturalization in any way.

    Taken together, the two phrases: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” defines the two, and exactly two ways that the ‘pool’ of citizens can be expanded: by birth and by naturalization.

    To this day, Congress can legislate to exclude foreigners of any source from the naturalization process. If they so choose, they can exclude those born in Africa or China. What they cannot do is exclude those actually born in America from citizenship or demand any born citizen go through a naturalization process. Congress has authority over naturalization, not natural born.

  307. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2015 at 5:59 am #

    SvenMagnussen: In order for the defendant to put forth their evidence Obama had a US passport in 1981, they’d have to call a witness to testify. On cross-examination, I’d ask the witness in front of a jury, “How do know Obama didn’t use a fake US passport?”

    More lies and ridiculous statements to cover up your obvious blunder.

    Basically you now claim that, before going to Europe in 1981, young student tourist Obama, who was presumably according to you in the US with a green card or some kind of student visa, was somehow more likely to purchase a fake US passport on some kind of black market, as opposed to getting a proper and legal visa which is what any other Indonesian citizen could do.

    Leaving aside WHY he would do this, thus committing a serious crime, do you realize how absurd, transparent and pathetic your lies are????

    I don’t know US criminal procedure, but the court scenario you’re obviously jerking off to also strikes me as totally absurd and unreal.

    Since what you claim happened involves obtaining and using a fake US passport, am I right in guessing that is not a matter for a civil court but a criminal court?

    The FBI (I think?) would be doing the investigating and reporting to the DA(?) who would be handling the prosecution.

    Let others more knowledgeable than I correct me here as to what the correct prosecution would be for Obama being caught using a fake US passport.

    In any case, I imagine such a matter would ONLY come to court AFTER a proper investigation as to whether said passport was authentic or a forgery, which I’m sure the FBI could determine in a matter of hours, maybe a couple of days?

    (I suppose they have record they can check and even in 1981 or 1983, determining whether one as using a real or a forged passport would not take long.)

    Since the passport is very likely to have been authentic, Obama would never be charged & the matter would never play out in court, and there would be no counter-examination and everything else you fantasize about.

  308. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2015 at 6:00 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama’s certificate of naturalization was administratively cancelled in 2008 by the DoJ…yada yada yada.

    You have been spouting the same word salad BS for months. Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong? Cite your evidence. It has been explained that every thing you claim has a public record paper trail. Whistleblowers (if they exist, which I do not grant you, even for the purpose of argument) cannot possibly be placed in danger by you going to the repository where the records are stored and obtaining copies. It has been explained that you don’t need a court order. You don’t need to depose anyone. You just need to go get the documents.

    Those documents would then be the smoking gun that would prove you right, and nobody except the Obama Conspirators would be in any danger what-so-ever.

    Put up or shut up, Sven.

  309. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2015 at 6:04 am #

    For the record, let us note that Sven has now officially “upgraded” his tissue of lies to include the charge that Obama was indeed using a fake/forged US passport in 1981.

    I wouldn’t call that progress, more like a mental patient who thinks he is Napoleon purchasing a holiday home in Saint-Helena, but still, from a patient chart standpoint, it’s noteworthy.

  310. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 25, 2015 at 6:28 am #

    Ok…from 1795 to 1870…only white aliens could be naturalized. That pesky word natural. If natural is a Kind/Race…how can other races be naturalized. The Founders intended naturalization be limited to White Aliens.

    Surely the 1870 Act is not legal. Aliens descendend from the African race and aliens from the White race are not the same natural kind.

    Congress was limited by the Constitution and Founders to naturalize the White Race. Period. The First Naturalization Act established this rule.

    The White Race are the naturals. This has nothing to do with racism, it’s clearing up why the Founders used the term Naturalization and Natural Born Citizen,

    They wanted the country and specifically the President to be their own natural kind.

    The Kindly fruits of the Earth in the Book of Common Prayer are the natural fruits of the Earth.

    This explains why Washington thanked John Jay for his “hint”. The Founders removed born a citizen and replaced with …..

    Am I that smart…probably not..but I’m on the right track.

    I’m grateful the owner this site permits me to post here.

  311. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 25, 2015 at 6:30 am #

    ObligedFriend: Am I that smart…probably not..but I’m on the right track.

    Not smart, just a racist

  312. avatar
    faceman February 25, 2015 at 6:31 am #

    ObligedFriend: The Naturalization Act 1798 changed US residency to 14 years, and added the requirement the ‘white alien’ must reside 5 years in the state application was made to the court.Free white alien was not superseded.Naturalization and Natural born citizens are limited to the same natural kind as the Founders,Since the Congress is limited by the Constitution to Naturalizing citizens, what is the 14th Amendment?

    Okay, I’ll play. “Free white ALIEN” is someone who was born an ALIEN, and later becomes a citizen (Naturalizes). This does not apply to Obama, as he was never an ‘Alien.’

    ‘Natural Born Citizens’ have no residency requirement, as they were BORN citizens. Even if you want to use the precedent of the Dredd Scott decision, it was superseded by the 14th Amendment which granted citizenship at birth (i.e., natural born citizen) to ‘All persons,’ not ‘All white persons.’

    To play Devil’s Advocate, it doesn’t matter what the founders ‘intended’, if it was later superseded by a Constitutional Amendment.

  313. avatar
    faceman February 25, 2015 at 6:43 am #

    Consider the right of women to vote. It was decided in a very famous case that while a woman might be a citizen, that did not give her the Right to Vote. (The name escapes me right now, but I’m sure that most people who post on this blog are familiar with it).

    In response to that case, the suffragette movement eventually ensured the passage of a Constitutional Amendment that granted women the Right to Vote. Thereby ensuring that never again could someone claim that the founders never intended for women to vote.

  314. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2015 at 8:23 am #

    There is nothing in the Constitution that talks about the white or any other race. Several Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the Constitution as providing two sources of citizenship, birth and naturalization. Here’s one example from Minor v. Happersett (1874):

    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

    Whatever power Congress exercised in the various naturalization statutes is separate from and does not apply to persons who are born citizens.

    ObligedFriend: Congress was limited by the Constitution and Founders to naturalize the White Race. Period. The First Naturalization Act established this rule.

  315. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 9:13 am #

    SvenMagnussen: In order for the defendant to put forth their evidence Obama had a US passport in 1981, they’d have to call a witness to testify. On cross-examination, I’d ask the witness in front of a jury, “How do know Obama didn’t use a fake US passport?”

    You have proof of this or is this a fishing expedition? You think suggesting that Obama used a fake passport without actual proof that he did is going to endear you to the court? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

  316. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 9:16 am #

    faceman: Consider the right of women to vote.

    Thanks, faceman. I used this argument yesterday myself. ObligedRacist doesn’t seem to think that amendments to the Constitution are allowed. I wonder how he feels about that Second Amendment?

  317. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 9:19 am #

    ObligedFriend: Ok…from 1795 to 1870…only white aliens could be naturalized. That pesky word natural. If natural is a Kind/Race…how can other races be naturalized. The Founders intended naturalization be limited to White Aliens.

    The reason was not the color of their skin, but the fact that they were slaves and were considered to be PROPERTY. Black people are no longer PROPERTY, Abraham Lincoln put an end to that, and the Fourteenth Amendment and the Naturalization Act of 1870 are results of getting rid of slavery. Or do you think they SHOULD BE property? Something tells me you would probably say yes.

  318. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 9:35 am #

    ObligedFriend: The White Race are the naturals.

    Please get this racist prick off this site. He’s not adding anything to this discussion but hatred and stupidity.

  319. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 9:37 am #

    ObligedFriend: I’m grateful the owner this site permits me to post here.

    Why would there be any question of whether you could post here? Oh yeah, because even YOU realize you’re a RACIST PRICK!

  320. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2015 at 9:38 am #

    Keith:

    Put up or shut up, Sven.

    Sven obfuscates as much as Nancy, just slightly less irrationally.

    He claims that he filed a lawsuit to test his theories, but he refuses to provide a case number or tell us where he filed it.

    He claims to have whistleblowers, but he refuses to identify them.

    He claims to have a video of Obama being naturalized (at the same ceremony where Arnold Schwarzenegger was naturalized, no less) but he won’t show it to anyone. If such a video exists, why not turn over a copy to Fox News?

    It’s easy to make claims. Backing them up with evidence is another matter.

  321. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2015 at 9:47 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    it’s clearing up why the Founders used the term Naturalization and Natural Born Citizen,

    They used the two terms to distinguish between people who were born U.S. citizens and people who were born aliens but wanted to become U.S. citizens. It’s as simple as that.

  322. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 9:50 am #

    Anyone who is “naturalized” is a “natural citizen” after the fact. Obviously anyone who was born in the U.S. would be a “natural born citizen” as they cannot hold a lesser “natural” citizenry than an alien who has been “naturalized”.

  323. avatar
    faceman February 25, 2015 at 10:01 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Motions for summary judgment are governed by the FRCP. The FRCP is US law. Unless legislation is vetoed by the President, all US law is enacted by the President.

    Not so. All laws are enacted by CONGRESS. The president may sign a law that has been passed by Congress. Or, the president may veto a law, in which case Congress may override his veto. Or, he could just refuse to sign it, in which case it automatically becomes law 10 days after it was passed by Congress.

    If you make mistakes like this in the little things, why should anyone believe you on the big things?

    The president does not have to provide evidence that he traveled on a US passport in 1981. As plaintiff, you have to provide evidence that he did not.

    A judge will issue a summary judgment if, in the eyes of the court, you do not present enough evidence to allow for the possibility of success in a trial based on the merit of the evidence. The fact that, under cross-examination, Obama’s witness might have to admit that he did not personally examine the passport that Obama used in 1981 would not meet that standard. After all, any witness you could call would have to admit the same thing. (I doubt the actual immigration officer who did examine the passport of an insignificant college student 24 years ago would specifically remember anything about it)

  324. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 10:10 am #

    faceman: The president does not have to provide evidence that he traveled on a US passport in 1981. As plaintiff, you have to provide evidence that he did not.

    Poor Sven, doesn’t understand that he needs to provide proof that he doesn’t have. Did I read recently that Sven was calling himself a lawyer? Obviously he’s not.

  325. avatar
    ballantine February 25, 2015 at 10:46 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Alright, let’s say the AUSA submits a affidavit from a US executive level officer with USCIS that has sworn a search was conducted and a certificate of naturalization allegedly issued to Barack Hussein Obama, II was not found and never existed. The AUSA moves the court for summary judgment on the facts submitted.

    I answer the American people, by a majority vote in the Electoral College, have wilfully or unintentionally, voted to elect an ineligible President and there is no federal mechanism to prevent an ineligible President from assuming office. Sovereign immunity and any other immunity asserted by executive level US federal officers has been waived after notice of the President’s ineligibility and a refusal to object to a violation of the US Constitution. All executive level US federal officers support an ineligible President and have a vested interest in covering up Obama’s ineligibility.

    I object to the appointments made by the ineligible President as a violation of the Appointments Clause and request the entry of appearance and all pleadings submitted by the AUSA on behalf of the appointed USA or hold a hearing on the eligibility of the President of the United States. Further, I object to the sworn affidavit by the US executive level officer of the USCIS after an appointment by an ineligible President in violation of the Appointments Clause.

    Further, the FRCP and FRE were amended under the delegation of authority doctrine prescribed by the Judiciary Act. The Supreme Court orders amendments, deletions and additions after a vote with two Associate Justices appointed by Obama participating. Those Associates Justices assumed their seats on SCOTUS after a violation of the Appointments Clause due to appointments made by an ineligible President. Summary Judgment is governed by Rule 56 of the FRCP. Rule 56 was amended in 2009 and 2010. FRCP rules are US law enacted into law by the President pursuant to the Presentment Clause. The Presentment Clause is violated when an ineligible President enacts a Congressional Act into law.

    Further, I object to the Archivist of the United States, another appointee of Obama who assumed their office after a violation of the Appointments Clause. The Archivist of the United States holds all US federal law, rules, and regulations in trust as evidence of law. The evidence of law is tainted after the Archivist was appointed by an ineligible President.

    And last, but certainly not least, I provide notice to the judge President Obama naturalized in 1983 and is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United. As such, I suggest the judge recuse and transfer the case to retired judge that was not in service on January 20, 2009 so an impartial jurist can investigate the allegation President Obama naturalized in 1983, sua sponte. In the interest jurisprudence, I suggest the judge depose President Obama and ask him specifically if he filed a notice of intent to naturalize in the USDC CDC, 1981, and a petition for naturalization in the USDC CDC, 1983.

    President Obama was put in place by a majority vote and can only be adversely impacted by impeachment and a trial in the Senate. Judicial officers and all other executive level officers of the US federal government appear to have a personal stake in the outcome of the trial and cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. President Obamawill not be adversely impacted without an impeachment and trial in the Senate and should be deposed by an impartial jurist who does not have a personal stake in the outcome of the trial.

    Seriously, you can’t actually be a lawyer. You still have presented nothing that can survive summary judgment. Objections to evidence, unsupported assertions and notice of some unsupported claim are not facts that will survive summary judgment. You also present a bunch of silly questions of law that can be easily dismissed prior to a trial, but they all rest upon you first providing factual evidence to support your claim. You are making Orly look smart.

  326. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 25, 2015 at 10:52 am #

    I’m amazed, we actually have someone who is apparently stupider and more ignorant than John. Watch out John, someone is after your position as village idiot.

    Note to the new village idiot. Once more. The original Constitution was absolutely mute on race as far as citizenship is concerned, the Congress could write laws as to who, an alien, could become a citizen, but not as to who was, other than to add clarification. The Constitution was also mute as far as race, sex, or age with concern to voting.

    There is, and was no preferment written in to the Constitution.

    All of these conditions were left to the states to determine, and have since been striped from state control.

    As a side note, there were free black citizens in the US from before the creation of the Constitution, and there were black citizens in the US after the formation of the Constitution who had been born here.

  327. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 10:52 am #

    john: Under his Christian Faith, the definition of Marriage would between a Man and Woman. As such, if the state is saying that isn’t so, that would considered a violation of person’s religious values, another Constitutional NO NO

    Your right to religious values stops at my right to equal protection (not that I’m gay, but I could have been). Your right to religious freedom doesn’t allow you to choose how I lead my life. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then don’t marry a person of the same sex. If you are a member of the clergy, then don’t perform marriages you don’t agree with, but you cannot stop people from being treated equally.

    By the way, you said you don’t see where the Constitution recognizes gay marriage, I don’t see where the constitution mentions marriage at all. And the Defense of Marriage Act is DEAD! Section 3 of DOMA (the part that talks about marriage being between a man and a woman and not any other type of marriage) was found to be unconstitutional and in violation of the Due Process clause. Whatever YOU think marriage is, you don’t get to decide for others. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t gay marry. Simple as that!

  328. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 10:56 am #

    ballantine: You are making Orly look smart.

    I just spit my Cheerios laughing so hard. LMAO

  329. avatar
    ballantine February 25, 2015 at 11:00 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    The Naturalization Act 1798 changed US residency to 14 years, and added the requirement the ‘white alien’ must reside 5 years in the state application was made to the court.

    Free white alien was not superseded.

    Naturalization and Natural born citizens are limited to the same natural kind as the Founders,

    Since the Congress is limited by the Constitution to Naturalizing citizens, what is the 14th Amendment?

    You realize you are generally making Justice Taney’s argument in Dred Scott which pretty much everyone agrees was wrong based upon our history. Blacks were citizens in numerous states at the start of the Republic and continued to be treated as such up until the war. Of course Congress could have naturalized any aliens as the text makes clear. For example, they naturalized Indians pursuant to such power pursuant to special naturalization acts. In the north, the prevailing view in the pre-war era was that native-born slaves were natural born citizens under the disability of slavery. Accordingly, when they were freed, they were natural born citizens. This was the view of 14th Amendment Congress who, to a man, said they were not changing pre-existing law, just clarifying that Dred Scott was null and void. And the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with naturalization.

  330. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 25, 2015 at 11:01 am #

    john:
    Under his Christian Faith, the definition of Marriage would between a Man and Woman.As such, if the state is saying that isn’t so, that would considered a violation of person’s religious values, another Constitutional NO NO

    Lol what? That’s stupid even for you. What do you mean christian faith? The bible has changed the definition of marriage multiple times from being one man and many women to being one man and a very much younger woman. The christian faith also didn’t allow divorces yet we do in our society. Why do you hate the constitution so much?

  331. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 25, 2015 at 11:12 am #

    bgansel9: Did I read recently that Sven was calling himself a lawyer?

    —-

    I don’t think Sven ever claimed to be a lawyer; he merely claimed to be a graduate of his own personal law school….

    I think the most interesting thing about Sven’s “case” is the relief he is seeking. He is not seeking the removal of the President. (He admits that only Congress can do that). Instead, he seeks an order that “exempts” him (and him alone) from all U.S. law. Keep in mind that he also insists that this order come from a retired judge, not an actual sitting judge.

    Another interesting thing is that he wants to be able to have this trial without any due process of law whatsoever. He need not disclose witnesses or produce any evidence. U.S. attorneys would not be allowed to object to anything. He would argue to the jury that his allegations are enough (because all plaintiffs are presumed honorable and honest), and that all government officials are presumed to be self-interested people who violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. Then, it would all be left for the jury to decide….

    He still hasn’t told us how the jury would be picked. I imagine he’d object to anyone who voted for Obama, etc. Maybe he could try to exclude all non-white people, and Obliged Fiend could help him make his arguments…

    It seems Sven would do better in the birthers’ fake Grand Jury system…

  332. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 11:13 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Lol what? That’s stupid even for you. What do you mean christian faith? The bible has changed the definition of marriage multiple times from being one man and many women to being one man and a very much younger woman. The christian faith also didn’t allow divorces yet we do in our society. Why do you hate the constitution so much?

    Let’s not forget that Jacob had two wives and also fathered children with two concubines. Other patriarchs also had more than one wife – Solomon, for instance, had at least 700 wives (some of the Jewish faith even believe Adam had a wife named Lilith prior to Eve.)

  333. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2015 at 11:14 am #

    ballantine: You realize you are generally making Justice Taney’s argument in Dred Scott which pretty much everyone agrees was wrong based upon our history. Blacks were citizens in numerous states at the start of the Republic and continued to be treated as such up until the war. Of course Congress could have naturalized any aliens as the text makes clear. For example, they naturalized Indians pursuant to such power pursuant to special naturalization acts. In the north, the prevailing view in the pre-war era was that native-born slaves were natural born citizens under the disability of slavery. Accordingly, when they were freed, they were natural born citizens. This was the view of 14th Amendment Congress who, to a man, said they were not changing pre-existing law, just clarifying that Dred Scott was null and void. And the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with naturalization.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I was led to believe (having read Walter Nugent’s Habits of Empire) that one of the concerns voiced about the Louisiana purchase was the automatic grant of US citizenship (as per the Treaty terms) to the French and Spanish folks living in the region. Some wondered whether these “foreigners”, unacquainted with democracy could or should become citizens. In the end, they took in the (so-called) “white folks” who became US citizens overnight with, I believe all the rights and privileges of such citizenship, including presumably to right to run for President; but they re-instutionalized slavery for the black folks. Oops.

  334. avatar
    gorefan February 25, 2015 at 11:15 am #

    ObligedFriend: Ok…from 1795 to 1870…only white aliens could be naturalized. That pesky word natural. If natural is a Kind/Race…how can other races be naturalized. The Founders intended naturalization be limited to White Aliens.

    Native born African Americans such as Samuel Fox were citizens of the United States even prior to the 14th amendment.

    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/odyssey/archive/02/0206001r.jpg

  335. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2015 at 11:19 am #

    Rickey: Sven apparently is confusing Obama with Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was naturalized at the Shrine Auditorium (not “Shriner’s” Auditorium) on September 16, 1983. Or, more likely, Sven read about Schwarzenegger’s naturalization so he picked that date for Obama’s supposed naturalization.

    It is possible, I suppose, that Sven saw that video and since it’s a well-known fact in Svengistan that all black men look alike, spotted an African man that bore some passing resemblance to President Obama, and the rest is, as they say, lunacy.

  336. avatar
    ballantine February 25, 2015 at 11:35 am #

    Lupin: Correct me if I’m wrong but I was led to believe (having read Walter Nugent’s Habits of Empire) that one of the concerns voiced about the Louisiana purchase was the automatic grant of US citizenship (as per the Treaty terms) to the French and Spanish folks living in the region. Some wondered whether these “foreigners”, unacquainted with democracy could or should become citizens. In the end, they took in the (so-called) “white folks” who became US citizens overnight with, I believe all the rights and privileges of such citizenship, including presumably to right to run for President; but they re-instutionalized slavery for the black folks. Oops.

    You are right, making such foreigners citizens was controversial. In addition, some questioned whether foreigners could be made citizens by treaty at all and wondered what kind of citizens they would be. Eventually, it became accepted that Congress could make citizens by treaty but never quite clear what type of citizens they were.

  337. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 25, 2015 at 11:57 am #

    J.D. Sue: —-

    I don’t think Sven ever claimed to be a lawyer; he merely claimed to be a graduate of his own personal law school….

    I think the most interesting thing about Sven’s “case” is the relief he is seeking.He is not seeking the removal of the President.(He admits that only Congress can do that).Instead, he seeks an order that “exempts” him (and him alone) from all U.S. law.Keep in mind that he also insists that this order come from a retired judge, not an actual sitting judge.

    Another interesting thing is that he wants to be able to have this trial without any due process of law whatsoever.He need not disclose witnesses or produce any evidence.U.S. attorneys would not be allowed to object to anything.He would argue to the jury that his allegations are enough (because all plaintiffs are presumed honorable and honest), and that all government officials are presumed to be self-interested people who violate their oath to uphold the Constitution.Then, it would all be left for the jury to decide….

    He still hasn’t told us how the jury would be picked.I imagine he’d object to anyone who voted for Obama, etc.Maybe he could try to exclude all non-white people, and Obliged Fiend could help him make his arguments…

    It seems Sven would do better in the birthers’ fake Grand Jury system…

    No, I moved for the active judge to recuse because he was hearing a case that could impact active judges personally if the allegations I presented that the President was ineligible were meritorious.

    In the event a majority of the American voters have chosen an ineligible Person to assume the presidency, the constitutional republic is dismantled. The active judge progressively loses his constitutional authority and Absolute Immunity as the ineligible President enacts laws, rules, regulations into law in violation of the Presentment Clause. It is a violations of a citizen’s constitutional rights to hear a case presented by a US Attorney appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause and impose FRCP enacted into law by an ineligible President in violation of the Presentment Clause.

    An judge inactive since Obama took office would not be held personally liable for aiding and abetting an ineligible President as he, with the thunderous applause of the American voting majority, dismantled the constitutional republic. An active judge since Obama took office is stripped of Absolute Immunity after he issues orders and makes findings pursuant to laws enacted by an ineligible President and pleadings submitted by appointees who assumed their positions after a violation of the Appointments Clause.

    Unfortunately, the judge supports fundamentally changing America.

  338. avatar
    faceman February 25, 2015 at 12:14 pm #

    “…impose FRCP enacted into law by an ineligible President…. ”

    No, No, NO. Laws are not enacted by a President. They are enacted by CONGRESS. I keep telling you this, but you do not seem to listen.

    Also, in response to (blah, blah, blah), you have been told many times about the ‘De Facto’ principle.

    Take off your rainbow shades, Arizona.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfqKS3ENYBQ

  339. avatar
    y_p_w February 25, 2015 at 12:38 pm #

    bgansel9:
    Anyone who is “naturalized” is a “natural citizen” after the fact.Obviously anyone who was born in the U.S. would be a “natural born citizen” as they cannot hold a lesser “natural” citizenry than an alien who has been “naturalized”.

    One could renounce citizenship. Of course that’s the pitch that Sven is continually whiffing on.

  340. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 25, 2015 at 12:53 pm #

    ballantine: Seriously, you can’t actually be a lawyer.You still have presented nothing that can survive summary judgment.Objections to evidence, unsupported assertions and notice of some unsupported claim are not facts that will survive summary judgment. You also present a bunch of silly questions of law that can be easily dismissed prior to a trial, but they all rest upon you first providing factual evidence to support your claim. You are making Orly look smart.

    I’m not a lawyer. But I do understand the doctrine of jurisprudence. In the doctrine of jurisprudence, the court accepts a complaint and proceeds as if the allegations made in the complaint are true. Even if the case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, or some other procedural violation, the allegations are considered to be true until a decision on the merits is reached. The court does not find the allegations to be untrue or true, the court will determine if the allegations lack merit or have merit with respect to the relief requested.

    For example, an attorney files a complaint alleging the President is ineligible and requests the court order the President to vacate the White House and inform Congress his is ineligible in the form of a written communication. The presiding judge dismisses the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction … that means the Judge is not constitutionally authorized to order a duly elected President to vacate the White House without an impeachment or trial and conviction in the Senate.

    Obots jump for joy because the judge has determined Obama is eligible. Birther attorneys, who actually support Obama, demand the public send them verifiable, classified or unclassified, stolen or borrowed evidence to present with a complaint. Unfortunately, evidence submitted with a complaint is ignored because the allegations are considered to be true as a matter of jurisprudence.

    So, I, after putting my thinking cap on, requested relief for myself as a person who objected to violations of the Constitution. I requested exemptions from the laws, rules, and regulations enacted into law by the ineligible President. I alleged Obama naturalized as a US citizen in 1983 and was ineligible to hold the office. For the purposes of pre-trial motions, the judge considers the allegation to be true as a matter of jurisprudence. Any evidence submitted with complaint is ignored as a matter or jurisprudence.

    To prevent Obama from being deposed under oath, Obots, US federal officers and judicial officers who have a personal stake in making sure Obama’s ineligibility does not see the light of day have devised a scenario where a the AUSA will submit an affidavit by another US federal officer swearing they can’t find Obama’s certificate of naturalization. The affidavit is submitted pursuant to the FRCP prior to discovery. If the US federal officer didn’t have a personal stake in the outcome of the trial, then they would be on to something. But the US federal officer does have a personal stake in the trial and it appears there is motive to protect the US federal officer’s personal interests.

    As I mentioned in my lawsuit, the AG administratively cancelled Obama’s certificate in 2008. Of course it won’t be found because its been cancelled. Barring Obama’s deposition under oath where he is not threatened with losing his job because the House has not impeached him, the next step is to subpoena Obama’s petition for naturalization held at NARA, Riverside, CA. Unfortunately, the document is under control of the Archivist of the United States, another appointee of Obama who has a personal stake in the outcome of the trial.

    To prevent this, I objected to the FRCP and FRE prescibed by SCOTUS court order where two Associated Justices appointed by Obama participated and I objected to the FRCP enacted into law by an ineligible President. Further, I requested the active judge to recuse and assign the case to an inactive judge to avoid any appearance of impropriety by US federal officers, judicial or executive branch. A federal judge has the power to issue subpoenas or interrogatives or hearing testimony sua sponte.

    Of course I was ignored because federal employees are too important to be held accountable for supporting violations of the Constitution.

  341. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 12:53 pm #

    y_p_w: One could renounce citizenship. Of course that’s the pitch that Sven is continually whiffing on.

    I am talking about citizens, not former citizens.

  342. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 1:01 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In the event a majority of the American voters have chosen an ineligible Person to assume the presidency, the constitutional republic is dismantled.

    Don’t you wish!

  343. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 25, 2015 at 1:08 pm #

    faceman:
    “…impose FRCP enacted into law by an ineligible President…. ”

    No, No, NO.Laws are not enacted by a President.They are enacted by CONGRESS.I keep telling you this, but you do not seem to listen.

    Also, in response to (blah, blah, blah), you have been told many times about the ‘De Facto’ principle.

    Take off your rainbow shades, Arizona.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfqKS3ENYBQ

    Believe it or not, I had a licensed attorney from a prominent lawfirm try to convince me the legislation passed by Congress is US law. Not true. Pursuant to the Presentment Clause, Congress can only enact legislation into US law after a sitting President vetoes it. Without a veto, only the President can enact legislation into US law.

    Think of it this way, Congress passes Congressional Acts. The President enacts Congressional Acts into US law. The Judicial Branch is not constitutionally authorized to pass legislation or enact legislation into US law. But, the Judicial Branch can void US law by declaring it unconstitutional. \

    When one branch of government can enact legislation into law without oversight from a equal branch of government, then you have tyranny.

  344. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2015 at 1:23 pm #

    ObligedFriend: The White Race are the naturals. This has nothing to do with racism, it’s clearing up why the Founders used the term Naturalization and Natural Born Citizen,

    The only “kind” involved is “HUMANKIND” and the Founders have told you so in exactly so many words. They have spoken to you, “ObligedFriend”, directly, elegantly, and posthumously.

    These words are from one of America’s most sacred founding documents – I’m sure you will recognize which one:


    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    Did you get that reference Mr. ObligedRacist? The Founders held as self-evident that ALL men (meaning HUMANKIND, not gender) are CREATED equal.

    So to use your pseudo-Biblical rendering of the use of the word ‘kind’ as some type of magical incantation that you can restrict in any way YOU want to restrict it, the Founders are directly and specifically telling you that you are full of the stuff that falls out of the south end of a north bound bull.

    ‘kind’ doesn’t mean ‘white kind’, ‘asian kind’, ‘african kind’ or anything of the kind. It means HUMANKIND.

  345. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 1:30 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m not a lawyer. But I do understand the doctrine of jurisprudence. In the doctrine of jurisprudence, the court accepts a complaint and proceeds as if the allegations made in the complaint are true. Even if the case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, or some other procedural violation, the allegations are considered to be true until a decision on the merits is reached.

    What do you hope to gain from having a complaint in a court that has not been litigated and calling it “true” just because the complaint exists? I’m sure Orly Taitz would be absolutely thrilled to hear that Harrison J. Bounel’s SS# actually DID exist for that period of time prior to the judge granting summary judgment to Colvin. That really helped her stop Obama from using a SSN that he shouldn’t be using, huh? LOL

    You are crazy!

  346. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 1:50 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Think of it this way, Congress passes Congressional Acts. The President enacts Congressional Acts into US law. The Judicial Branch is not constitutionally authorized to pass legislation or enact legislation into US law. But, the Judicial Branch can void US law by declaring it unconstitutional.

    The president doesn’t write the enacting clause. Think of it this way: The United States Congress SPONSORS the legislation and therefore THEY are the ones to enact, they fill out an enacting clause which creates law and/or strikes out superfluous material that is being rewritten. They then send their sponsored bill (having been approved by both the House and the Senate) to the president who puts his mark on it stating that he acknowledges the law exists. If he disagrees with the law, he can choose to veto, but, of course, his veto can be overridden by Congress. The entity sponsoring the legislation (Congress) has the final say, and if they can override the veto, they will.

    It’s obvious that you thought all of this crazy crap out of your own head. I’ll bet you consider yourself a legal scholar too, don’t you? Please keep me informed about your progress with filing your suit and I’d really like to hear the judge’s response when you inform him or her that they have to take your complaint as the honest and absolute truth prior to judgment, however long that may take, as if they cannot decide your complaint is not valid. You appear to be saying they are not allowed to acknowledge (even to themselves) at all that your complaint has a problem. It appears you are trying to skew the judgment in your favor simply because the complaint exists. Jurisprudence does not give full carte blanch to a plaintiff simply because they complained. It merely means their complaint will be treated as a valid complaint until it appears to be invalid (which yours surely will). I’m sure they’d like to know who this guy is in their courtroom telling them how to do their job.

  347. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 25, 2015 at 1:53 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Believe it or not, I had a licensed attorney from a prominent lawfirm try to convince me the legislation passed by Congress is US law. Not true. Pursuant to the Presentment Clause, Congress can only enact legislation into US law after a sitting President vetoes it. Without a veto, only the President can enact legislation into US law.

    You do know what happens if congress passes a law but the president never signs it nor vetoes it?

  348. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 2:03 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Of course it won’t be found because its been cancelled.

    So what you’re saying is you think that records that existed for a citizen are thrown away after that person is no longer a citizen? Or, an action pertaining to citizenship is deleted after the person changes their mind? This is not so. All records are maintained, and for citizenship there is no expiry date. You’ve never worked in records retention, apparently.

  349. avatar
    faceman February 25, 2015 at 2:07 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Believe it or not, I had a licensed attorney from a prominent lawfirm try to convince me the legislation passed by Congress is US law. Not true. Pursuant to the Presentment Clause, Congress can only enact legislation into US law after a sitting President vetoes it. Without a veto, only the President can enact legislation into US law.Think of it this way, Congress passes Congressional Acts. The President enacts Congressional Acts into US law. The Judicial Branch is not constitutionally authorized to pass legislation or enact legislation into US law. But, the Judicial Branch can void US law by declaring it unconstitutional. \When one branch of government can enact legislation into law without oversight from a equal branch of government, then you have tyranny.

    so, of course, your legal expertise is greater than that of a ‘licensed attorney from a prominent lawfirm.’

    Let me walk you through Civics 101: There are 3 branches of government: Judicial (the courts), Executive (president), and Legislative (Congress). Congress is the one that passes laws (enacts legislation). The Executive branch (President) can either agree that everything is copacetic (signs it), disagree with it (veto it) OR DO NOTHING. If the president neither signs it nor vetoes it, it becomes law after 10 days (Thus, the law is ‘enacted’ without the president doing anything). If he vetoes it, Congress can override the veto, but it requires more than a simple majority. Of course, the judicial branch has final review, and can declare it unconstitutional.

    Think of it this way: The President, and the Courts, are the ones exercising oversight on Congress.

    Enacting Legislation is different from the president issuing an executive order. You may have heard of the recent brouhaha over the president’s recent executive order on immigration. What he did was NOT ‘enact a law’. And Congress can pass legislation that directly addresses the executive order, or the courts can declare it unconstitutional, providing your ‘oversight.’

  350. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 25, 2015 at 2:08 pm #

    bgansel9: What do you hope to gain from having a complaint in a court that has not been litigated and calling it “true” just because the complaint exists?I’m sure Orly Taitz would be absolutely thrilled to hear that Harrison J. Bounel’s SS# actually DID exist for that period of time prior to the judge granting summary judgment to Colvin.That really helped her stop Obama from using a SSN that he shouldn’t be using, huh?LOL

    You are crazy!

    Colvin and the Obama appointed Judge had a vested interest in making sure Bounel’s SSN# wasn’t found. Instead of making an Appointments Clause challenge and requesting a hearing on Obama’s eligibility if the court found the appointments valid, Taitz argued the search was inadequate because a secondary source proved the primary source custodian did not search adequately.

    The federal court is not authorized to consider secondary sourced evidence when the custodian of the primary sourced evidence is unimpeached. An Appointments Clause challenge is a way to impeach the custodian of primary sourced evidence. Secondary sourced evidence, the evidence obtained by a licensed investigator, may only be considered as rebuttal at trial. Rather than trying to prove Colvin was wrong and the primary source evidence could be found if Orly was allowed to conduct the search, Orly should have challenged the appointments of Colvin, the Judge and the AUSA representing SSA and Colvin.

    Historically, Appointments Clause challenges are addressed before a motion to dismiss. Since the Judge’s appointment was being challenged, the judge should have recused. And if you put your thinking cap on, the FRCP and FRE should challenged as voided US law after amendments, additions and deletions enacted into US law by an ineligible President.

    Then request the judge issue a sua sponte subpoena for Obama’s complete SSA file to determine if he is using a valid SSN. Now you have primary sourced evidence to work with.

  351. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 2:15 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Historically, Appointments Clause challenges are addressed before a motion to dismiss. Since the Judge’s appointment was being challenged, the judge should have recused. And if you put your thinking cap on, the FRCP and FRE should challenged as voided US law after amendments, additions and deletions enacted into US law by an ineligible President.

    Then request the judge issue a sua sponte subpoena for Obama’s complete SSA file to determine if he is using a valid SSN. Now you have primary sourced evidence to work with.

    Then add that to your case and let’s watch that fail too.

    The SSA looked for Bounel’s SSN, they did not find it. You cite a conspiracy but you offer no proof. You seem to think anything that doesn’t come down the way you want it to is mishandled by Obama and a host of conspirators. I think you should add this to your case and let’s watch you fail royally. Go for it, Sven.

  352. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 2:30 pm #

    Here Sven, this is an example of an enacting clause:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/101

  353. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 25, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

    faceman:

    Enacting Legislation is different from the president issuing an executive order.You may have heard of the recent brouhaha over the president’s recent executive order on immigration.What he did was NOT ‘enact a law’.And Congress can pass legislation that directly addresses the executive order, or the courts can declare it unconstitutional, providing your ‘oversight.’

    Taitz v. Johnson is an eligibility goldmine. It was Obama’s appointee, Johnson, who wrote the memo. It was an Obama appointee, Colin Kisor, who entered pleadings on behalf of the Johnson and the United States. Orly should collaterally attack with an Appointments Clause Challenge declaring their appointments unconstitutional after an appointment by an ineligible President. If the court denies the challenge, Orly should request a hearing to determine the eligibility of the President.

    When the AUSA starts submitting pleadings with respect to the FRCP and FRE, Orly should challenge the validity of those rules as invalidated after enactment by an ineligible President and prescibed by court order where a vote took place in which invalidly appointed Associate Justices Kagen and Sotomayor participated.

    Orly should respectfully request that Judge Hanen subpoena Obama’s naturalization records, State Department records and social security records to determine his eligibility pursuant to a Sovereign Immunity challenge. If not, Orly should suggest a court ordered subpoena to allow her to search for those records personally.

    But, she won’t do it because she supports Obama and is not really interested in exposing Obama and her friends in the DoJ would lose their jobs for not supporting the Constitution against a usurper.

  354. avatar
    Arthur B. February 25, 2015 at 2:39 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: But, she [Orly] won’t do it because she supports Obama and is not really interested in exposing Obama…

    What, you don’t think your credibility is low enough already?

  355. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 25, 2015 at 2:39 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Colvin and the Obama appointed Judge had a vested interest in making sure Bounel’s SSN# wasn’t found

    You’re assuming that such a person actually existed.

  356. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 2:52 pm #

    Every time I see your name now, Sven, I shall think of Frank Sinatra as the guy that discovered the plot in the Manchurian Candidate. Conspiracy theories is all you’re about dude.

  357. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 25, 2015 at 2:57 pm #

    bgansel9:
    Here Sven, this is an example of an enacting clause:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/101

    That statement is for Congressional Acts.

    Congressional Acts are enacted into US law by the President, barring a veto, pursuant to the Presentment Clause. Without a veto signed by an eligible President, Congress is not authorized to enact a Congressional Act into US law. Only an eligible President can enact legislation into US law when the legislation has not been vetoed.

    The FRCP and FRE are US law enacted into by the President. It does not matter if the President doesn’t read or sign the amendments to the FRCP or FRE, only the President can enact legislation into US law unless there is a signed veto.

    Further, all US law is held in trust as evidence of US by the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist is an appointee of Obama subject to an Appointments Clause challenge.

  358. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 25, 2015 at 3:10 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Congressional Acts are enacted into US law by the President, barring a veto, pursuant to the Presentment Clause. Without a veto signed by an eligible President, Congress is not authorized to enact a Congressional Act into US law.

    You do know if a president doesn’t sign it and doesn’t veto it within the ten day period, the bill still becomes law

  359. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 3:25 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Congressional Acts are enacted into US law by the President, barring a veto, pursuant to the Presentment Clause.

    Really? You need to read Clause 2 again. Clause 2 does not say “a bill becomes law after the president signs it” it merely states that the legislation shall be presented to the president before it becomes law. You read too much into it. No action has to be taken by the president for the bill to become law.

  360. avatar
    faceman February 25, 2015 at 3:42 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: That statement is for Congressional Acts.

    What other kind of Act is there? The president does not ‘enact’ a law. He signs it (Or doesn’t sign it).

    Try reading the Necessary and Proper Clause in Sec 1 Art 8:The Congress shall have the power “To make all laws Which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forgoing powers and all other powers vested in this Constitution in the government of the United States…”

    The Presentment Clause outlines the veto authority of the president, but, by the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is Congress who makes (enacts) the laws.

  361. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Further, all US law is held in trust as evidence of US by the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist is an appointee of Obama subject to an Appointments Clause challenge.

    This is an insane statement. Ferriero has been involved in Library Sciences for the last 50 years. Are you saying that he prepared for this (currently) 50 year career knowing he was going to be Barack Obama’s archivist?

    The man is highly qualified, having been the Associate Director at M.I.T for more than 30 years. and then at Duke as well as the New York Public Library. One does not gain this much experience with an eye towards fraud. You accuse a man of fraud who is considered to be of great integrity simply because of who appointed him? You are a loose cannon.

  362. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 25, 2015 at 5:02 pm #

    faceman: Necessary and Proper Clause in Sec 1 Art 8

    Ha ha ha. So, the Presentment Clause is optional? Ha Ha Ha.

    The Presentment Clause is the legislative procedure for making US law. All Congressional Acts must be presented to the President.

    Clause 3 of the Presentment Clause:

    “Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.”

  363. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 25, 2015 at 5:10 pm #

    From Beowulf..

    Ge-cynde, adj., [kind], natural, hereditary

    The Collaborative International Dictionary of English :

    Kind, cynde, gecynde, natural, innate, from the root kin.
    1. Characteristic of the species belonging to ones nature, natural, native (1913 Webster)

    Here’s an example linking natural to native.

  364. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 25, 2015 at 5:17 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:

    The Constitution does not required the President to sign legislation he approves of. The President is only required to sign legislation he disapproves to affirmatively veto it. All legislation that has been approved of by the President is enacted into US law by the President if Congress is in session for 10 days after it is presented to the President.

    Presentment Clause, Clause 2, last sentence.

    ” If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

  365. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 25, 2015 at 5:18 pm #

    UnKind means UnNatural.

  366. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 25, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

    bgansel9: This is an insane statement. Ferriero has been involved in Library Sciences for the last 50 years. Are you saying that he prepared for this (currently) 50 year career knowing he was going to be Barack Obama’s archivist?

    The man is highly qualified, having been the Associate Director at M.I.T for more than 30 years. and then at Duke as well as the New York Public Library.One does not gain this much experience with an eye towards fraud. You accuse a man of fraud who is considered to be of great integrity simply because of who appointed him? You are a loose cannon.

    Typical Washington D.C bureaucrat response to notice the President is ineligible … “What about my career?”

  367. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 25, 2015 at 5:36 pm #

    Ace the Verbal on the SAT, Loren Meierding, 2005

    Page 121

    kin, OE Cynd, kind, orgin, birth, family, cynde, natural, kindly, race, clan, genus, a kind or class

    An Etymologicial Dictionary of the English Language, Walter Skeat, 2013

    Race, tribe, kindly, adj: ME,kynd, natural, AS, cynde, natural, native,

  368. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2015 at 5:40 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    But, she won’t do it because she supports Obama and is not really interested in exposing Obama and her friends in the DoJ would lose their jobs for not supporting the Constitution against a usurper.

    Orly has friends in the DOJ? Name one.

  369. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 25, 2015 at 5:54 pm #

    Specimens of Early English, Richard Harris, 1867

    the land of ones kin, A.S. Cynde, Natural, Cynd, race, kindred, the kindly (natural) fruits of the earth.

    The Old English unkind signifies unnatural

    Why did Washington remove born a citizen? Natural born Citizen is a Kind.

    What is the land of ones kin?

  370. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2015 at 5:55 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    UnKind means UnNatural.

    You are confusing “kind” the noun with “kind” the adjective.

    kind (adj.)
    “friendly, deliberately doing good to others,” from Old English gecynde “natural, native, innate,” originally “with the feeling of relatives for each other,” from Proto-Germanic *kundi- “natural, native,” from *kunjam “family” (see kin), with collective prefix *ga- and abstract suffix *-iz. Sense development from “with natural feelings,” to “well-disposed” (c.1300), “benign, compassionate” (c.1300).

    unkind (adj.)
    Old English uncynde “unnatural, not natural;” see un- (1) “not” + kind (adj.). Meaning “lacking in kindness” is recorded from mid-14c

    http://www.etymonline.com/

  371. avatar
    Crustacean February 25, 2015 at 6:24 pm #

    I’m afraid I don’t get all this talk about kind-cynd-race-kindred-natural etc. etc…

    Is the takeaway from this that you believe non-white people are ineligible to be president of the United States? I mean, I realize you’re a fruitcake, but that can’t be what you’re saying.

    Can it?

    ObligedFriend:
    Specimens of Early English, Richard Harris, 1867
    the land of ones kin, A.S. Cynde, Natural, Cynd, race, kindred, the kindly (natural) fruits of the earth.
    The Old English unkind signifies unnatural
    Why did Washington remove born a citizen? Natural born Citizen is a Kind.
    What is the land of ones kin?

  372. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 6:33 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Ha ha ha. So, the Presentment Clause is optional? Ha Ha Ha.

    Nobody said the Presentment clause is optional. Do you know how to read? What we are saying is that the Presentment clause does NOT say that a bill becomes law due to the president signing the bill. The enactment is not contingent on presidential signature. The bill becomes law when congress enacts it AND presents it (both having to be achieved) and so long as the president doesn’t send it back, it will become law regardless of whether it is signed or not.

  373. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 6:40 pm #

    ObligedFriend: What is the land of ones kin?

    What is the land of your kin, ObligedRacist? Certainly not the “good ol’ U.S. of A.” Nobody is indigenous to this land (that’s why it’s called the “New World”) and if anyone can claim kindredness to the land, it would be the Indian population who arrived many thousands of years ago (somewhere between 15 and 40 thousand to be exact). Are you Indian? (I could be wrong but I think I’d bet heavy on “No”).

  374. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Typical Washington D.C bureaucrat response to notice the President is ineligible … “What about my career?”

    You’re just a conspiracy freak, Sven. You deride a man’s career with NO PROOF and you call my explanation of why your statement is crazy a “typical Washington bureaucratic response?” I have news for you, I don’t work in Washington and I don’t work in politics. I am an average American working for less than $25k a year and you are a paranoid conspiracy freak.

  375. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 25, 2015 at 7:54 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    UnKind means UnNatural.

    Yes your racism is UnNatural

  376. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 25, 2015 at 8:04 pm #

    If the Founders limited Congress to Naturalizing the White Race….this means all the naturalization laws passed after the War Between the States are not valid.

    I’ve shown natural born is a Kind. Two different kinds cannot be the same Kind, it’s against natural Law.

    Race is in the Constitution. It’s located in the words natural born citizen and limiting Congress to Naturalization.

    If Africans from Ethopia migrated here and not White Europeans, had white slaves, fought a revolution, wrote the Federalist Papers, The Declaration and Constitution they will be the Naturals//Natives, the original citizens and natural born citizens.

    They did not.

  377. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 25, 2015 at 8:44 pm #

    Before the Declaration and Constitution, the so called Indians were the natives, the indigenous, the naturals,

    After the Declaration, Constitution the new natives, indigenous, naturals were the White settlers who became citizens. And their descendants are the natural born, the posterity in the Constitution.

    The natural born must be the same natural kind as the Founders.

    This is the secret to natural born citizen. All our scholars. The lawyers, the politicians and others could not figure this out is alarming…

    Forget about Obama for a moment…open your mind to the real meaning of natural and why the Framers used the term. It’s a Kind.

  378. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2015 at 8:54 pm #

    ObligedFriend:

    I’ve shown natural born is a Kind.

    You’ve shown no such thing. The noun “kind” (as a kind of people) has nothing to do with the word natural. It is the adjective “kind” (as in someone being a kind and compassionate person) which 700 years ago was associated with the word “natural.” The connection had to do with natural feelings, such as someone naturally loving his or her children. It had nothing to do with someone’s status in nature, and it had nothing to do with citizenship.

    You apparently never learned in school that laws, whether adopted by the Founders or by subsequent generations, can be amended, repealed, or effectively be repealed by subsequent legislation or by amending the Constitution. For example, the Founders wrote a Constitution which specifically permitted slavery; those portions of the Constitution were rendered inoperative by the 13th Amendment.

  379. avatar
    faceman February 25, 2015 at 8:56 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Ha ha ha. So, the Presentment Clause is optional? Ha Ha Ha.

    The Presentment Clause is the legislative procedure for making US law. All Congressional Acts must be presented to the President.

    I did not say it was optional. I, and the Constitution, said that “The Congress shall have the power to make all laws.” Yes, the president has ‘oversight’ in that he can require Congress to pass it by a 2/3rds majority instead of a simple majority (Presentment Clause), but it is Congress that MAKES laws.

    ‘Legislative Procedure’ is for the Legislative Branch of government (Article 1). The President is the head of the Executive branch of government (Article 2).

  380. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2015 at 8:59 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    If the Founders limited Congress to Naturalizing the White Race…

    If my Auntie had balls, I’d have another Uncle. The authors of the Constitution gave Congress the power of Naturalization. Period.

    Nowhere does the Constitution say anything about restricting naturalization to white people or blue people or any kind of people. It says Congress gets to decide. If Congress wants to exclude the ‘yellow races’ it can (and did for many years); if it wants to include the ‘yellow races’ it can (and does now). Congress makes all the rules about naturalization. End of story.

    this means all the naturalization laws passed after the War Between the States are not valid.

    No it doesn’t. Congress has, and has always had, 100% say in who can be naturalized and who cannot. The civil war did not change that one iota. The civil war changed the attitude of ‘We the People’ to many issues, not just slavery, but it did not change the power of Congress to legislate for the management of naturalization.

    I’ve shown natural born is a Kind. Two different kinds cannot be the same Kind, it’s against natural Law.

    Natural Born is a ‘kind’ of citizen, I’ll grant you that. There is one other ‘kind’ of citizen – naturalized. Anyone born in America – of any ‘race’, creed, or economic standing is a natural born Citizen. Anyone not born in America can be a naturalized if they meet the criteria as set forth by Congressional legislation.

    What Natural Born is NOT is a ‘kind’ of human. The Founders went out of their way to ensure their words applied to EVERY human: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.

    Race is in the Constitution.

    No it isn’t. Slavery was in the Constitution, but has been ‘amended out’.

    It’s located in the words natural born citizen and limiting Congress to Naturalization.

    This has been addressed. I’ll just add that it is an insane attempt to twist the plain words of men whose magnificent foresight in the construction the American Constitution rank them in the secular sainthood of the human race, and an insult to the Constitution itself.

    If Africans from Ethopia migrated here and not White Europeans, had white slaves, fought a revolution, wrote the Federalist Papers, The Declaration and Constitution they will be the Naturals//Natives, the original citizens and natural born citizens.

    You really don’t have any contact with reality do you? I’ll give it one last try to explain it to you, but I’ll put it into another post.

    They did not.

    The only correct string of words in your entire screed.

  381. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2015 at 9:14 pm #

    ObligedFriend: If Africans from Ethopia migrated here and not White Europeans, had white slaves, fought a revolution, wrote the Federalist Papers, The Declaration and Constitution they will be the Naturals//Natives, the original citizens and natural born citizens.

    OK. I’ll address this stupidity with a small history lesson.

    First, if you seriously subscribe to this idea, then you forget one little thing: the Siberians migrated here thousands of years before Europeans or anyone else could write the Federalist Papers, The Declaration, and the Constitution. They undoubtedly held slaves at various times and under different circumstances. If ANY so-called ‘race’ has a right to the descriptions “Naturals//Natives, the original citizens and natural born citizens” it is they. Europeans are not ‘the original Citizens’, they are the Conquerors of ‘the original Citizens’.

    Second, you posted a couple of dictionary synonym lists for the word ‘kind’. One of those lists included the word ‘genus’. Other words in that list included things like ‘tribe’, ‘family’, etc. Now I know you want to focus on the idea of ‘tribe’, especially in this particular comment. But the founding fathers specifically said “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL” and that that idea is a “SELF EVIDENT TRUTH”. The only synonym you list that comes close to describing “ALL MEN” is the word ‘genus’. The genus ‘HOMO’ describes all humans and it so happens that there is only one existing species in the ‘HOMO’ genus at this time – ‘HOMO SAPIENS’ – that is exactly “ALL MEN” as described by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence.

    Furthermore as to your idea that somehow dividing Homo Sapiens in to races in order to justify your own personal bigoted exclusionism is ‘natural’: the concept of race is 100% UNNATURAL. It is an invention of 17th and 18th century European Supremacists to justify THEIR personal bigoted colonialism and enslavement of subjugated peoples. There is nothing natural about it, anymore than sexual abuse of children is ‘natural’.

    For more information on the unnaturalness of race see : ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF RACE

    Slavery and the Coming of Africans

    Race and its ideology about human differences arose out of the context of African slavery. But many peoples throughout history have been enslaved without the imposition of racial ideology. When we look at 17th century colonial America before the enactment of laws legitimizing slavery only for Africans and their descendants (after 1660), several facts become clear.

    1). The first people that the English tried to enslave and place on plantations were the Irish with whom they had had hostile relations since the 13th century.

    2) Some Englishmen had proposed laws enslaving the poor in England and in the colonies to force them to work indefinitely.

    3) Most of the slaves on English plantations in Barbados and Jamaica were Irish and Indians.

    By your reckoning, the Irish are white and entitled to ‘natural born citizenship’ – yet here they are being enslaved; even the English poor, as white as white as you could ever hope for (except that they were poor) might have been enslaved. How then could they have qualified under your ‘rule’ for natural born citizenship on the basis of their race. The Dred Scott decision made it quite clear that the descendants of slaves could not be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’.

    A New Social Identity

    Toward the end of the eighteenth century, the image of Africans began to change dramatically. The major catalyst for this transformation was the rise of a powerful antislavery movement that expanded and strengthened during the Revolutionary Era both in Europe and in the United States. As a consequence proslavery forces found it necessary to develop new arguments for defending the institution. Focusing on physical differences, they turned to the notion of the natural inferiority of Africans and thus their God-given suitability for slavery. Such arguments became more frequent and strident from the end of the eighteenth century on, and the characterizations of Africans became more negative.

    From here we see the structuring of the ideological components of “race.” The term “race,” which had been a classificatory term like “type,” or “kind,” but with ambiguous meaning, became more widely used in the eighteenth century, and crystallized into a distinct reference for Africans, Indians and Europeans. By focusing on the physical and status differences between the conquered and enslaved peoples, and Europeans, the emerging ideology linked the socio-political status and physical traits together and created a new form of social identity. Proslavery leaders among the colonists formulated a new ideology that merged all Europeans together, rich and poor, and fashioned a social system of ranked physically distinct groups. The model for “race” and “races” was the Great Chain of Being or Scale of Nature (Scala Naturae), a semi-scientific theory of a natural hierarchy of all living things, derived from classical Greek writings. The physical features of different groups became markers or symbols of their status on this scale, and thus justified their positions within the social system. Race ideology proclaimed that the social, spiritual, moral, and intellectual inequality of different groups was, like their physical traits, natural, innate, inherited, and unalterable.

    You can see from this that the entire structure of ‘race ideology’ is MAN MADE, developed whole cloth from the self-serving need for slave traders to justify their trade in the face of growing opposition to the entire concept of slavery.

    There is nothing about race and race ideology that is natural. NOTHING.

  382. avatar
    faceman February 25, 2015 at 9:14 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    If the Founders limited Congress to Naturalizing the White Race….this means all the naturalization laws passed after the War Between the States are not valid.

    Where exactly did the founders say that they were limiting Congress to Naturalizing the White Race? Answer: They didn’t. The Constitution grants Congress the power to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” If they chose to include whites only, so be it. If they chose to include non-whites, so be it.

    Remember, such Acts as the Chinese Exclusion Act were part of Congress ‘establishing a uniform rule of naturalization.’ They were not part of the Constitution. As opposed to the 14th Amendment, which IS part of the Constitution, and which grants citizenship AT BIRTH to ALL persons born in the US (except for a few well-known exceptions).

  383. avatar
    BobJ February 25, 2015 at 9:31 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Before the Declaration and Constitution, the so called Indians were the natives, the indigenous, the naturals,

    After the Declaration, Constitution the new natives, indigenous, naturals were the White settlers who became citizens. And their descendants are the natural born, the posterity in the Constitution.

    The natural born must be the same natural kind as the Founders.

    This is the secret to natural born citizen. All our scholars. The lawyers, the politicians and others could not figure this out is alarming…

    Forget about Obama for a moment…open your mind to the real meaning of natural and why the Framers used the term. It’s a Kind.

    The abbreviated ArNash?

  384. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 25, 2015 at 9:34 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: SvenMagnussen (wrote) : Congressional Acts are enacted into US law by the President, barring a veto, pursuant to the Presentment Clause. Without a veto signed by an eligible President, Congress is not authorized to enact a Congressional Act into US law.

    Doctor Ken, you responded with :”You do know if a president doesn’t sign it and doesn’t veto it within the ten day period, the bill still becomes law

    No, Sven didn’t know. He’s not a lawyer and he’s not a scholar and he’s not much of a reader evidently! Bet he won’t be humbled by his major error as expressed with his usual absolute certainty!

    And, Sven, as you scramble to try to explain your error, don’t think the President’s pocket veto option saves your erroneously contemplated theory!

  385. avatar
    gorefan February 25, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Why did Washington remove born a citizen?

    What, when?

  386. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 10:54 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Before the Declaration and Constitution, the so called Indians were the natives, the indigenous, the naturals,

    After the Declaration, Constitution the new natives, indigenous, naturals were the White settlers who became citizens. And their descendants are the natural born, the posterity in the Constitution.

    So you freely admit that your “kin” were not natives and they were usurpers who drove out another group of people who were here first, and you cling to the correctness of that?

  387. avatar
    bgansel9 February 25, 2015 at 10:57 pm #

    Keith: There is nothing about race and race ideology that is natural. NOTHING.

    I agree with that, but, apparently we have a lot of people in this country who disagree and so we are forced to deal with it. The best way to dispatch this is to shame them for their sick ideology.

  388. avatar
    Keith February 26, 2015 at 12:42 am #

    bgansel9: I agree with that, but, apparently we have a lot of people in this country who disagree and so we are forced to deal with it. The best way to dispatch this is to shame them for their sick ideology.

    I agree. As I said in the other thread, ‘race’ is not real; ‘racism’ is very real indeed.

  389. avatar
    Lupin February 26, 2015 at 4:19 am #

    This thread has become very disheartening.

    First, we have Sven spouting off nonsense as usual, even when his beliefs fly against all too obvious established facts, law, jurisprudence and procedures. And he keeps repeating the same nonsense ad nauseam, going deeper & deeper into his rabbit hole of paranoid fantasies.

    Then we have ObligedRacist who in all aspects appear to be a Southerner from the 18th century who took a time machine trip to 2015 and is horrified to discover how lax we’ve become when it comes to “race”. The alternative that he may in fact be from our era is too frightful to contemplate.

  390. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 26, 2015 at 6:14 am #

    Benji Franklin: No, Sven didn’t know. He’s not a lawyer and he’s not a scholar and he’s not much of a reader evidently!Bet he won’t be humbled by his major error as expressed with his usual absolute certainty!

    And, Sven, as you scramble to try to explain your error, don’t think the President’s pocket veto option saves your erroneously contemplated theory!

    How a Bill becomes US Law …

    One of the important steps in the enactment of a valid law
    is the requirement that it shall be made known to the people
    who are to be bound by it. There would be no justice if the
    state were to hold its people responsible for their conduct
    before it made known to them the unlawfulness of such behavior.
    In practice, our laws are published immediately upon their
    enactment so that the public will be aware of them.
    If the President approves a bill, or allows it to become
    law without signing it, the original enrolled bill is sent from
    the White House to the Archivist of the United States for
    publication. If a bill is passed by both Houses over the
    objections of the President, the body that last overrides the
    veto transmits it. It is then assigned a public law number, and
    paginated for the Statutes at Large volume covering that
    session of Congress. The public and private law numbers run in
    sequence starting anew at the beginning of each Congress and
    are prefixed for ready identification by the number of the
    Congress.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc49/html/CDOC-110hdoc49.htm

  391. avatar
    American Mzungu February 26, 2015 at 6:28 am #

    Lupin:
    This thread has become very disheartening.

    First, we have Sven spouting off nonsense as usual, even when his beliefs fly against all too obvious established facts, law, jurisprudence and procedures.And he keeps repeating the same nonsense ad nauseam, going deeper & deeper into his rabbit hole of paranoid fantasies.

    Then we have ObligedRacist who in all aspects appear to be a Southerner from the 18th century who took a time machine trip to 2015 and is horrified to discover how lax we’ve become when it comes to “race”. The alternative that he may in fact be from our era is too frightful to contemplate.

    Take heart from the responses from the community of reasoning and reasonable people on this site. These are the gold coins in the bucket of mud. Many thanks to you and the many others who polish the gold.

  392. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 26, 2015 at 6:42 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If the President approves a bill, or allows it to become
    law without signing it, the original enrolled bill is sent from
    the White House to the Archivist of the United States for
    publication.

    So contrary to your original assertion that the president has to enact a law; we were right and you were wrong.

  393. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 26, 2015 at 7:42 am #

    Ken’s quote should have been inserted here …

    ———————————————————————————

    Unsigned Bills transmitted to the Archivist of the United States are considered to have been approved by President and enacted into US law by the President because the enacted US law is transmitted by the President to the Archivist for publication.

    A Bill is not required to have the President’s signature to be enacted into US law by the President. A veto requires the President’s signature. If the veto is overridden, Congress transmits the enacted US law to the Archivist of the United States for publication.

    All rules and regulations, including the FRCP and FRE, are enacted into US Law by the President. The Pesident’s signature is not required to enact the rules and regulations into US law because approval is implied without an affirmative, signed disapproval from the President.

  394. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 26, 2015 at 8:56 am #

    Emily Dickenson Lexicon:

    Definition for Natural
    A native, an original inhabitant.

  395. avatar
    Rickey February 26, 2015 at 10:18 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Emily Dickenson Lexicon:

    Definition for Natural
    A native, an original inhabitant.

    A definition which fits Obama, He is a native, born in Hawaii, and Hawaii was his original habitat. Her definition of the phrase “native town” Is “birthplace; hometown; place of origin.”

    By the way, her name is spelled Dickinson.

  396. avatar
    bgansel9 February 26, 2015 at 11:21 am #

    ObligedFriend: A native, an original inhabitant.

    which suggests Jus Soli law. Are you claiming that “native, original inhabitant” does not do that? Where is RACE mentioned or alluded to in this definition and if you believe it means original tribe, and you agree that Europeans came to America more than 15,000 years AFTER the original Amerinds (Haplogroup Q1a3a of Y-DNA samples) – and you did agree with this yesterday, why do you consider white people (and ONLY white people) to be natives? Do you think this definition helps your assertion? It doesn’t. Not at all.

  397. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2015 at 11:45 am #

    “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States….. James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

    “NATIVES. All persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, are considered as natives.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

    “Native. A person born within the limits of a country. A citizen or inhabitant by birth.” Calvin Townsend, Analysis of Civil Government, pg. 325 (1869)

    NATIVE. [Lat. nativas, born, home born.] In English law. A natural born subject. 1 Bl. Com. 366. In American law. A person born within the jurisdiction of the United States. 2 Kent’s Com. 38. Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, pg 737 (1851)

  398. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 26, 2015 at 3:03 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: And, Sven, as you scramble to try to explain your error, don’t think the President’s pocket veto option saves your erroneously contemplated theory!

    So Sven, instead of admitting that you were wrong about a key element in your extra-legal theory of how you would be entitled to proceed against Obama, you obscurely post part of booklet of rules of procedure created and revised BY THE CONGRESS! titled, ‘How a Bill becomes US Law’ …

    And by your on goofy theory, you’re wrong about the objectivity of a retired judge, SELECTED BY A COMPROMISED ACTIVE JUDGE but needing HIS GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT PAYMENTS to keep coming in from a government agency. But you’re still refining this collateral attack on the Constitution, so I’m sure your next prescription will SHAMELESSLY call for a thoroughly independent DECEASED FEDERAL JUDGE to rubber stamp your thinly veiled hate misdemeanors directed at Obama.

  399. avatar
    Crustacean February 26, 2015 at 5:00 pm #

    My father-in-law is not retired or deceased, but is senior status good enough for Sven? Problem is, if I asked him to hear Sven’s case, he’d make his daughter divorce me, tout suite…

    Benji Franklin: I’m sure your next prescription will SHAMELESSLY call for a thoroughly independent DECEASED FEDERAL JUDGE to rubber stamp your thinly veiled hate misdemeanors directed at Obama.

  400. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 26, 2015 at 5:09 pm #

    Benji Franklin: And by your on goofy theory, you’re wrong about the objectivity of a retired judge, SELECTED BY A COMPROMISED ACTIVE JUDGE but needing HIS GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT PAYMENTS to keep coming in from a government agency. But you’re still refining this collateral attack on the Constitution, so I’m sure your next prescription will SHAMELESSLY call for a thoroughly independent DECEASED FEDERAL JUDGE to rubber stamp your thinly veiled hate misdemeanors directed at Obama.

    Pursuant to the 14th Amendment, US federal government officers participating in an insurrection against the US federal government may lose their retirement benefits. A retired federal judge not in active service on Janurary 20, 2009 is not subject to losing their retirement benefits after an ineligible President is installed into office. If the retired judge finds Obama is eligible, the retired judge’s benefits continue as before. If the retired judge finds Obama ineligible he may order the abandoned constitutional republic’s assets preserved to pay future obligation, i.e. a bankruptcy.

    As to a hand picked judge, I don’t think so. I would object to any action a federal takes after supporting an ineligible President. A pool of retired judges would have to be formed and one would be randomly selected.

  401. avatar
    Crustacean February 26, 2015 at 5:27 pm #

    Say whaaaa??? You don’t even realize how freakin’ guano psycho you sound, do you! (cue the theme music from Twilight Zone)

    SvenMagnussen: If the retired judge finds Obama ineligible he may order the abandoned constitutional republic’s assets preserved to pay future obligation, i.e. a bankruptcy.

  402. avatar
    Northland10 February 26, 2015 at 5:40 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Race, tribe, kindly, adj: ME,kynd, natural, AS, cynde, natural, native,

    Sorry, but you only started this natural kind thing a few years ago to justify your already existing racist views. You disliked blacks before Obama was even on your radar. I don’t know if its because they ate all your donuts or that you are just weak and afraid of those who look different but this is the root of your argument. Everything else is just an attempt to find authority for your fear of others.

    I know it is tough, but you must learn to get over it. Bitter and angry is no way to live out your later years.

  403. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 26, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

    Natives/Naturals are the citizens created after the Declaration and or the Constitution, this includes their descendants, the natural born citizens.

    Saying Obama is a native species to these United States is saying the Pythons born in the Everglades Are natives,

    Moses was born in Egypt but was Israeli. Jus Soli is feudal.

    I’m wondering how many members this forum are really natural born citizens. How many go back to the Revolution and earlier.

    I’m going to post an excerpt from a Middle English Dictionary.

    “Kindly, adj. Natural: belonging to the kind or race.”

    UnKind is UnNatural

  404. avatar
    Arthur B. February 26, 2015 at 6:05 pm #

    ObligedFriend: I’m wondering how many members this forum are really natural born citizens. How many go back to the Revolution and earlier.

    How many of the U.S. Presidents have been natural born citizens?

  405. avatar
    OnligedFriend February 26, 2015 at 6:18 pm #

    My goal is finding and knowing why John Jay wrote natural born Citizen to Washington.

    After reading Jefferson telling his nephew to study Shakespeare to know English in its purest form and John Adams telling King George ” we are kindred blood” I had my clues.

    I used natural and kind, not knowing they had the same meaning.

    This led me to Henry V by William Shakespeare, “were all thy children kind and natural” and English Professor Brainerd Kellogg.

    In his book he explains kind and natural children. They are the same race and tribe. He said kindly and natural have the same meaning. His book is on line

    Calling me a Racist is an attempt to silence me. My ancestor fought in the American Revolution at age14. He’s an original member the Society Of Cincinnati, there’s a letter penned by Washington in the Williamsburg archives recommending my ancestor into the Society.

  406. avatar
    ObligedFriend February 26, 2015 at 6:39 pm #

    An Etymological Dictionary (1818)

    Kynd, kyndly, adj. Natural, kindred. native

  407. avatar
    Northland10 February 26, 2015 at 6:41 pm #

    OnligedFriend: My goal is finding and knowing why John Jay wrote natural born Citizen to Washington.

    After reading Jefferson telling his nephew to study Shakespeare to know English in its purest form and John Adams telling King George ” we are kindred blood” I had my clues.

    I used natural and kind, not knowing they had the same meaning.

    Jay and Jefferson were lawyers, Shakespeare was a writer. They would be looking to the law on the definition of natural born. How ’bout you sit back and have a Coke.

    The Law of Nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex aeterna [eternal law], the Moral Law, called also the Law of Nature…

    And the Apostle saith, Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit [Every soul is subject to more sublime powers]. And these be the words of the great Divine, Hoc Deus in Sacris Scripturis jubet, hoc lex naturae dictari, ut quilibet subditus obediat superio. [Here God in the Holy Scriptures wills it to be laid down as the law of nature that every subject should obey the sovereign…]

    By this Law of Nature is the Faith, Ligeance, and Obedience of the Subject due to his Sovereign or Superiour…

    This Law of Nature, which indeed is the eternal Law of the Creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time of his creation, was two thousand years before any Laws written, and before any Judicial or Municipal Laws…

    But between the Sovereign and the subject there is without comparison a higher and greater connexion: for as the subject oweth to the King his true and faithful ligeance and obedience, so the Sovereign is to govern and protect his Subjects, regere et protegere subditos suos [to rule and protect the subjects]…

    By all which it evidently appeareth, that they that are born under the obedience, power, faith, ligealty, or ligeance of the King, are natural subjects, and no aliens.

    …which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue [that is, a child] here, that issue is a natural born subject.

    You can read more at John Woodman’s blog, such as:

    Yes, it’s a matter of “natural law” — but it’s not the kind of “natural law” that says “it takes two horses to make a horse.”

    It’s “natural law” ultimately derived — if we trace it back far enough — from the Biblical principles that God has established governments and that people ought to obey legitimate authorities; and from the idea following from that, that it is natural for a person to be a member of the realm in which he or she was born.

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/natural-law-calvins-case-and-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

  408. avatar
    Crustacean February 26, 2015 at 6:42 pm #

    Incorrect. Putting you in a big brown bag and dropping you straight into the deep blue sea would be an attempt to silence you (h/t Van Morrison).

    Calling you a racist… well, that’s just science.

    Speaking of science, did you hear that the liberals at the Lawrence Berkeley labs have confirmed the relationship between human activity and global warming? I bet you have some interesting thoughts on that, too. But for the love of God, please do not share them!

    OnligedFriend: Calling me a Racist is an attempt to silence me