With apologies to Edward Lear:
There was an Old Man with a beard,
Who said, ‘It is just as I feared!
Two Owls and a Hen,
Four Larks and a Wren,
Have all sued Barack in my beard!
So somehow I ended at up this YouTube video by a fellow who has figured out how to get Barack Obama’s eligibility litigated. He’s going to demand the Attorney General bring a quo warranto action against the President, and if the AG refuses, he things that gives him the right to bring it himself.
Actually the DC statute (D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503) says that the leave of the court is required for someone else other than the Attorney General to bring the action. That said, the court in Taitz v. Obama determined that no one but the Attorney General actually has standing to bring it.
Taitz v. Obama, 754 F. Supp. 2d 57, 78 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 207 (D.D.C. 2010) as precedent to say “[o]nly the Attorney General may bring a quo warranto action against a public official.”
American Jurisprudence
Sherman, set the way back machine…
The first of the 30-something articles on this sited tagged “quo warranto” dates back almost to the site’s beginning, to an article about the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit in February of 2009. Orly Taitz liked that idea and brought a few of them herself. The protagonist in the current exercise in futility, Zane Grey, seems not to be aware that numerous demands have been made on the Attorney General to bring a quo warranto action (all ignored), and none of them was ever able to get a court to allow them to bring an action themselves.
See also Drake v. Obama, citing Taitz.
This has already been tried. I think I heard the court state that if the AG IGNORES the case that is not same as refusing to take the case so therefore no can get that authority AG has. In addition, the court cited standing problems where the person had to show a personal vested interest in the position. Quo warranto has been tried but it won’t work.
What’s next for The Beard? A ‘citizens grand jury’? Followed by a threat on the President (a promise to ‘perform a citizen’s arrest’) and quality time with the Secret Service?
Birferism: 1 obsession, ∞ dead ends
Another Quo Warranto action by Montgomery Blair Sibley was denied Cert at the Supreme Court of the United States today, January 7, 2013. The lawsuit is ex-rel Sibley v The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics.
Regarding SCOTUS, I seriously doubt any SCOTUS justice has ever seen birther petition. Most likely these case are being flatly denied by law clerks working for the justices. In conference, the justice merely sees just a name of the case with reccomendation that is be denied by the law clerk. Justices don’t question and follow the law clerks reccomendation
Ah, yes, the Conspiratorial Gatekeeper Hypothesis again. If only those poor, isolated Justices were allowed to witness the brilliance of a legal birf. They’d rend their robes, prostrate themselves, and weep as the scales fell from their eyes …
Or not.
john, birfer ‘petitions’ are just more overly-thick stack of frivolous nutjob ramblings. They are common as dirt in the legal system. Plenty of bored people with nothing better to do.
By the time they make SCOTUS, legal professionals have seen plenty of birfer-style crap.
In this week’s orders, SCOTUS disposed of approximately 650 petitions. Do you really expect that the Justices should by themselves read all 650 of them? If each justice spent an hour reviewing each petition, it would take them 27 days to read 650 of them, and that is assuming that they kept at it 24 hours a day.
Of course they rely upon their clerks. That is why they are very selective about their clerks. Only the best need apply.
It’s true. They are paid by Soros to do this. Why haven’t you realized this by now?
I can confirm this, because Soros and I regularly meet in New York for brunch in Greenwich Village. The International Jewish Conspiracy™ always meets at the Northern Spy Food Company, 511 East 12th Street, for a reason.
Exactly right, plus Supreme Court Justices’ clerks are often more ideologically “pure” than the Justice they clerk for. Conservative Justices’ clerks are often more conservative than the Justice, and so on. And it only takes four Justices to agree to grant Cert.
Birthers are in full repeat mode, a clear sign they know that after the oath of office, their legal options are as many as before the elections (meaning zero).
You can clearly see that in the recent number of old birther memes popping up as new ones:
* The “Onaka stated the BC is a forgery” meme
* The “Bishop McRae affidavit” (“Obama’s grandmother said he was born in Kenya”) meme
* Some other 2009 story I forgot
etc. which are now getting the “OMG this is huge” and the source detachment treatment (meaning that e.g. the Onaka meme is already being spread without giving any actual source for the claim, therefore entering birther lore as an actual fact and not just an interpretation of “what was not said”).
Kosher spy food? The 21 century never ceases to surprise me. 😉
The great clerk conspiracy always amuses me in a absurdity sense. Clerks are selected and employed by the justices and judges and not the executive branch. Their employer has a lifetime appointment not controlled by the President. How much they are paid and impeachment reside with the Congress.
Everything has been tried and hasn’t worked:
Post-election lawsuits
Ballot challeges
Trying to change state laws
Lobbying Congress not to certify the 2 elections
Quo warranto
Petitions
Soldiers disobeying orders
Lawsuits claiming laws signed by the President are invalid
Websites galore
“Investigations” by fake cops
Not only has none of it worked, it arguably helped re-elect the President. The birther noise seemingly drove turnout amongst groups favorable to the Democrats. That is what you and your pals accomplished, john, you probably HELPED Obama. If you guys had simply done and said nothing you would have accomplished no less and possibly more.
The Supreme Court knows more about the birther cases than John imagines. After all, Dr. Taitz has spoken with Justices Roberts and Scalia about them. And she has encouraged her supporters to make calls accusing the Chief Clerks of treason. Perhaps the reason the cases are not reviewed is not because of some great onspiracvy by lower level personnel, but rather, precisely because the Justices know exactly what the cases are about.
John, perhaps it might be more succesful to win a case to refrain from telling a judge to his face that he is guilty of treason if he rules against you. Just saying.
John Reilly: John, perhaps it might be more successful to win a case to refrain from telling a judge to his face that he is guilty of treason if he rules against you. Just saying.
actually taitz did almost that – she told judge england she was looking for one honest judge
judges are like attorneys, teachers, law enforcement, etc in that they protect their own
a parent can say her kid is a brat but don’t you dare tell her that her kid’s a brat
Only congress can impeach a member of SCOTUS.
Birthers could not get one objection to the Electoral vote count from any Republican congressman, what makes them think they can get them to Impeach Roberts?
That’s generally what happens to obviously merit-less petitions and applications.
You lie. Thought the specific discussions are not disclosed, Supreme Court Justices constantly question their law clerks. Both justices and clerks are dedicated to the process and vigilant in proper operation of the Court.
Misha does not lie. The Northern Spy Food Company really is at 511 E. 12th Street. It’s a nice inconspicuous spot, a perfect venue for plotting the destruction of America.
http://www.joonbug.com/media/vTT51tUfRIN/northern-spy-food-co-main.jpg
Got this from Youtube, thought I’d share it with you all!
” The FEDS never vetted Obama because of his RACE and FEAR of RACE RIOTS!”…quoted from poster Wanda
511 E. 12th is not in Greenwich Village. That is actually Alphabet City. 511 W. 12th, however, is *almost* in Greenwich Village, almost because 511 is more or less in the middle of the Hudson River.
This is the difference between feeding the pigeons or feeding the fishes. If you are able to decipher Misha’s code, welcome to the brother and sisterhood. If not, well…
They have deleted the comments from the youtube video. LOL
“A restaurant and food shop in the east village…”
https://plus.google.com/115409632083363601142/about?gl=US&hl=en-US
Right, but not Greenwich Village. I know it’s a small matter, but such is what conspiracies are made of. 😉
That’s one of the most extreme symptoms of their delusion. They constantly yap about how all 535 Congress members are traitors supporting da ebil usurrpurr, yet they always keep coming back to writing whiney/threaty letters to Congress requesting them to go birfer.
Within their bizarro world, that’s a bit like writing whiney letters to Al Capone saying “you evil evil man, stop all that mob activity now!”. And repeating same after Capone shot your parents. *facepalm*
That’s the part that has always puzzled me. Usually, conspiracy cranks do not expect the alleged conspirators to switch sides. The ultra-right wingers in my country don’t write letters to mainstream politicians demanding they reinstate the 1937 borders of the Reich.
Behind this “call to action” is a legal crank operating “Team Law”. A few years ago he elected himself governor of Colorado.
http://www.teamlaw.org/GovernorMadsen.htm
In a rare bit of sanity, Team Law places Black’s Law Dictionary at the top of its recommended reading list, specifically noting the sixth and eighth editions. TL instructs students to look up every term in any given legal document.
TL should have taken its own advice. “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
To add that these law clerks are not paralegals nor secretaries, they’re bona fide lawyers. Am I correct Ricky?
Some of them are not yet technically lawyers. They’re generally young, twenty-somethings. They are the top of the classes of the top law schools. They are the dream hires of the top law firms.
Perkins Coie competes with Jones Day to hire the top graduates from the law schools of Harvard and Yale and Standford. They hate it when another firm, their competition, snatches their favorite. But when a premium prospect chooses to clerk for a federal judge instead of accepting their offer of a six figure salary and partnership-track position, the richest law firms smile, nod, and suck it up. Clerking pays a meager stipend, but the experience is priceless.
Our legal system has its problems, but that’s not reason to go for the ignorant, stupid, hateful, and imaginary issues of the birthers. The law-clerk-conspiracy thing could not be farther from reality.
I understand that the cream of the crop of Taft Law School is aggressively recruited for plum clerkship positions with the US Postal Service.
I didn’t know that the Post Office had sunk that low.
I think you really mean the Pima County (AZ) Fiduciary Office.
But it’s also common crank behaviour. I’ve seen that in many cranks in my country who had exhausted all legal paths nationally and then tried to go to the European Court (which also has clerks handling the cases). When their appeals were denied, they claimed the clerks were German jurists and thus part of the Grand Conspiracy of German Courts [tm].
The Justices don’t live in a cave. They have TV and the internet. They go to cocktail parties. I guarantee you that all 9 are aware that the birthers exist and what their claims are, in a nutshell (pun intended). If they thought there was any merit, they would instruct their clerks, “If any Obama eligibiity cases show up, let’s have a good look at them. I want to hear one if we can.” And the clerks would do it, even if they opposed it, because they would know that their boss would likely find out if they disobeyed and that would end their career.
A more likely conversation would go something like this:
Justice: By the way, if any appeals from that lunatic Taitz show up, you know what to do with them, right?
Clerk: Indeed, sir (or ma’am). The vertical file.
Justice: Save the paper though. It’s chilly in the evenings and I can use it to get the fireplace going.
Clerk: In case there’s any left over, you don’t mind if I use to housetrain Rex, do you?
Justice: Of course not. Just don’t show him any pictures of Orly. He’s still a puppy after all….
That sounds about right, Scientist. I have no legal background, but I love hearing my father-in-law talk about his experience as a federal judge. He’s Republican (appointed by G.H.W Bush), and I have infinite respect for his wisdom. Next time we visit I have GOT to remember to ask him for his thoughts on the birthers. Interesting factor: he is NOT a tech guy – barely knows how to use a computer – so I doubt “PDF layering” is something he’s even heard of.
In the Drake vs. Obama opinion it states,
“Plaintiffs do not predicate their quo warranto claim on any plausible legal basis other than the D.C.Code.5 Thus, in this case, the District Court did not err by dismissing Plaintiffs’ quo warranto claims, as premised on the D.C.Code, for improper venue.”
Zane Grey did not predicate his quo warranto claim on the District of Columbia Code; rather, it was brought using his God given inherent right to quo warranto protected under the 9th amendment. Thus, Zane is not limited from bringing the action if the Attorney General fails to respond or timely bring the action himself.
Additionally, others who have brought quo warranto before have also failed to properly bring the action because they did not properly apply the law. This is obvious if you actually read the court cases like Drake vs. Obama where the case was brought in the improper venue. If a correct quo warranto case is brought by anyone other than an interested party, the case must be brought as The United States vs. Obama. One cannot bring the action in their own personal name.
You can read the actual Notice and Demand sent to the Attorney General here: http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1135
And on the ninth day, God brought forth the most holy writ of Quo Warranto that all his creation may be protected from a scary guy with a funny name.
P.s. When Peter later says honor the Emperor, ignore that part.
Quo warranto is a a God-given right? Funny, I don’t remember any religious figure, from any religion, ever saying anything about this.
Ok, I went over to the link. Discovered it was a Call to Action posted on December 22. Within that posting it states: “Regardless of what Congress does, this action must be in the courts before January 20th.” How ironic that your post here is on January 21.
Quo warranto has no relevance to the presidency.
I’m pretty sure Zane is proceeding with the case. There is no statute of limitations on Quo Warranto as long as the usurpation of office exists. I just found this blog post featuring my video regarding Zane’s Quo Warranto action.
Additionally, if you would have clicked the link to the Notice and Demand for a Writ of Quo Warranto within that forum post, you would have seen the actual instrument filed with the Attorney General.
Quo warranto always applies when usurpation of an office exists, even the office of President.
Where does Peter ever say to honor the Emperor?
If you don’t understand that quo warranto is a God given right to question “by what authority,” then you don’t have a proper understanding of what it is. If I came to your house and demanded that you leave and that the house was now mine, you wouldn’t just listen to me; rather, you would want to know by what authority I can take your house from you.
Yes, he does. Quo Warranto is a secular principle, not a religious one. I object to you trying to over-paint this with fatuous allusions to natural law, when it so clearly emerged out of terrestrial arguments concerning power, money, and land.
Quo warranto had its origins in an attempt by King Edward I of England to investigate and recover royal lands, rights, and franchises in England,[1] in particular those lost during the reign of his father, King Henry III of England.[2][3] From 1278 to 1294, Edward dispatched justices throughout the Kingdom of England to inquire “by what warrant” English lords held their lands and exercised their jurisdictions (often including the right to hold a court and collect its profits). Initially, the justices demanded written proof in the form of charters, but resistance and the unrecorded nature of many grants forced Edward to accept those rights peacefully exercised since 1189.[1][4] Later, quo warranto functioned as a court order (or “writ”) to show proof of authority; for example, demanding that someone acting as the sheriff prove that the king had actually appointed him to that office (literally, “By whose warrant are you the sheriff?”).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quo_warranto
Oh good grief! Your sole argument is that Obama is not a NBC because his father was not a U.S. citizen. Hate to break it to you, but that’s been public knowledge for years. Congress did not see that as an issue four years ago and they didn’t see it as an issue this year. You are doomed to fail. Personally, I don’t care if you waste your time, I’m just a little ticked that you cost taxpayers money in your silly, doomed tilting at windmills. Get a life. Find something productive to do!
Exactly why the people need to stand up and say enough! Pretty soon you will see people bringing quo warranto actions against Congressmen for failing to due their duties in confirming the eligibility of Obama for the President’s office. Maybe then they will wake up and do their jobs! If the people do nothing, this country will fall and the Constitution will be gone.
Anyways, Obama is costing the taxpayers way more money than Zane Grey who merely wants Obama to prove his eligibility.
Another delusional birther troll who fantasizes about representing the people of the U.S. The people spoke when they re-elected President Obama.
These idiots are under the mistaken impression that the President must prove his eligibility to their satisfaction.
It’ll be the new “pet rock.” Kids will be quo warrato-ing after stickball; there will be “flash quo warrantos” in the shopping malls. Tebowing and Kaepernicking: out. Quo warranting after a touchdown: in. Katy Perry will wear a onesie with a quo warranto on it. We’ll all be able to buy Quo Warrant-Os, and enjoy a heaping bowl for breakfast.
This will continue until the Glee Cast Version of “Quo Warranto” is released, signalling the official Death of the Fad.
Quo warranto? Speak Murrican or go back to Mexico.
But Congress DID do their duty. They determined that Obama was qualified for office. They affirmed the vote of the Electoral College. There were no objections, not a single one, from any Senator or any Representative. The fact that you don’t like Congress’ decision is irrelevant. Congress did decide Obama was qualified by their actions. There is not a court in the land which will decide otherwise!
Darn you, LW, for putting that image in my head! On second thought, thank you, LW, for putting that image in my head!
But seriously, Quo Warranto?? As far as Obama is concerned, I think there are just under 66 million answers to that question.
Are you confusing quo warranto with mandamus? Not that it matters.
If they do what you predict, I predict they will be unceremoniously rejected.
I never could find that step that went from the Attorney General refusing to bring the Quo Warranto action to “random guy in the street” gaining standing to bring it. Do you know of any case in the past where this happened?
PS, thanks for dropping by. It’s hard to have a discussion when you don’t allow comments on your video.
Since you asked, 1 Peter 2:17 (not to mention 2:13)
1 Peter 2:13-17
And for good measure, how about a little Romans 13:
Is your understanding of Scripture at the same level of your understanding of the law and Constitution? Is it that an Obot knows scripture better then the “God fearing birthers.”
They did. It was called the election.
No I wouldn’t.
I’d just tell you to piss off.
In DC the rules have been changed for Quo Warranto. The USAG must OK the action. In the States it still remains the same where after thirty days and no response the filer has “full authority” as a special prosecutor to bring the action in the name of the people.
Quo Warranto is a special remedial right of the People to hold officials accountable to their trespasses of Law, much like prohibition or Mandamus or Habeas Corpus.
This action didn’t come to fruition because of the lack of participation by the rest of the People, mostly due to the level of ignorance and apathy and denial from the less than educated public. Another reason was time constraints after the filing. It expired against Obama after Inauguration on the 20th of January. After that it was enforceable against those who sat him for the second time (wish I would have been on it during his first illegal presidency). You would all know this if you knew anything about the procedure. But, you don’t.
For thousands of years the term natural born citizen has meant the same thing worldwide; “A natural born Citizen is one born of parents, both of whom, are Citizens at the time of birth. Just being born here by immigrants is “native born” which is not eligible to be President. Sorry. The whole point of the clause is so that Putin or Kim Jong Un can’t have a child here and thirty five years later it is the President. Hello!
All the cases posted on Wikipedia were rightly rejected due to being brought at the wrong time, through the wrong court, raising the wrong issues etc. It was as if they were agent provocateurs of DC trying to make it look as if there was nothing that could be done. Do nothing loser, Eric Holder was the AG in DC at the time also, which, made everything even less likely.
After reading all of the negative, ridiculous comments posted here, except simplythink dreams, it’s little wonder it didn’t go anywhere. Obama, the resident, is still laughing all the way to the bank at the shameful ignorance of the People about their own law and government.
A dozen courts have rejected your opinion.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/lawsuits/recent-court-rulings-on-presidential-eligibility/
Have a nice day.
I checked Zane Grey’s blog. Looks like he is a a sov cit type.
The Founders used the terms (native born and natural born) interchangeably as in this example:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” St. George Tucker, 1803
Wow, all the negative comments from a lot of people who know so little about this topic. I’ll bet none of the nay sayers even read the Quo Warranto. All the other cases were brought in the wrong court, at the wrong time, raising the wrong issues and through the wrong authority, including the “great Orly taitz” an agent provocateur. This quo warranto was perfect. It is the people who were lacking.
The rules for quo warranto are different in DC than in the States, they’ve made it so no one can bring action unless they approve it. If they don’t respond, there’s nothing anyone can do to compel them to act except for millions of people demanding it. Only about 4,000 joined in this action as it is a short window from Nov. 7 to Jan. 20. (President Elect). In the States, if they don’t respond then full authority as a special prosecutor is attainable by the petitioner after 30 days. It used to be the same way in DC. Then again, titles of nobility used to be banned by the original 13th Amendment until the advent of the Corp US constitution in 1871. It is purely corporate in nature.
There are many cases where people have utilized this procedure to remove someone from office. Eric W. Madsen of Colorado is one who has done this several times.
This has become a nation full of those who complain but, never act. Had more people joined in the demand, Obama would have been in the Supreme Court trying to prove his eligibility which, would have been impossible through proper vetting. Congress never vetted his eligibility, obviously. All nations, according to the Law Of Nations, Emmerich D. Vattel, 1758, hold that a “Natural Born Citizen” is one born of parents who were Citizens at the time of birth. Neither of Obama’s parents were citizens at the time of his birth.
The “Law of Nations” was used exclusively to draft the Constitution of the United States of America. It is even referred to directly in the Constitution. This action was proper in all respects. It is the people, once again, who have failed to serve justice, not the law or Zane Grey.
Yes, foreign influence in our government is and should be dreaded more than the plague. Democrats not only put a foreigner in the office of President but, have now also, brought the covid 19 plague to our doors.
Wow, how could you be more wrong?
Even de Vattel noted that nations like England follow jus soli and that place of birth is the primary factor in one being a natural born subject.
Ann Dunham was a citizen of the United States from birth.
You are wrong about he Constitution and the reference to the law of nations. It is a generic term referring to crimes like piracy considered to be part of international law. If the Founders were considering a single work in this area it would almost certainly have referred to the chapter with the same name, OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS, from Blackstones Commentaries.
Madison said they used Blackstone’s Commentaries. There are multiple terms in the Constitution that are only defined in English law and are not mentioned in Vattel’s book.
Alexander Hamilton specifically wrote that the Convention used the British model for impeachment. He also wrote that the meaning of terms in the Constitution can best be found in English law.
Unlike de Vattel’s Law Of Nation’s, Blackstone’s Commentaries contains an entire chapter on “Offenses Against the Law Of Nations.” In Blackstone’s Commentaries he describes piracy as a felon committed on the high seas.
Barrel doesn’t mention piracy
Thanks for dropping by.
Given that Obama’s mother was born in Kansas and was evidenced to have a U. S. Passport (I have FOIA copies), the suggestion that neither of Obama’s parents were US citizens is, to say the least, ridiculous.
We do see people who say that they are right, and the rest of the world is wrong from time to time. Let me offer some words of advice. You’ll never convince anybody barging in with off-putting arrogance, and if you want to start a discussion, start small. A large dump from what appears to be an aggorgant crackpot isn’t going to be taken seriously. You got more in the way of response than your comment deserved.
The Framers of the Constitution used many sources for their ideas, but in the words of Chief Justice Taft, in ex Parte Grossman:
There is also the case of P.A. Lelong Jr. born in New Orleans to an alien father and US citizen mother (like President Obama).
In 1916, former President Teddy Roosevelt wrote that Mr. Lelong Jr. is eligible to be President.
Wow, for a second there I thought that I had gotten trapped in a time machine.
Let not forget that the government conceded that if Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, it meant that he was eligible to be president. And we know how many citizen parents he had.
In the United States, we do not call people born here “foreigners.” I refer the uninformed reader to the U. S. Constitution, and in particular the 14th Amendment.
You sound like an agent provocateur for the former administration. Obama’s mother was born in the US but, left before she was eighteen and did not return within ten years in which case one loses their Natural Born Citizenship they could have from their father. Regardless of that, it is the father who passes citizenship on to posterity. You sound like the negative Nancy of this thread. If Putin or Kim Jong UN had a child here and 35 years later it was President, you would be OK with it? The definition of a Natural Born Citizen dates back to ancient Rome and all relevant law was cited in the original Demand for Action, which you obviously didn’t even read. It was a whole 4 pages. Took weeks to research all of it and for someone like you to negative Nancy bash it in your ignorance is a sad testament to the ignorance of the average American, like you.
A 100 years ago it was common knowledge what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen (article 2, sec. 1, clause 5) today people don’t even know who the members of government even are.
FYI the 14th Amendment is one of the Civil War negro Amendments which bestows certain “privileges” on the negro who was illegal here after the end of the slave trade. Essentially, they are property of Congress through that Amendment and if you want to base your “rights” on that amendment, that’s your folly. The Constitution already guarantees those things to Americans prior to the Civil War amendments for the negros.
Your education on this whole subject is so limited it’s as if your are a talking head for democrats, who are also foreign to the Constitution. There is no evidence of Obama being born here because a “birth certificate” is not proof of the place where a birth took place and would help to explain why the PDF of it on the Whitehouse website had 11-12 layers behind it from all the corrections before it was portrayed. A “Record of Live Birth” was never revealed because it does not exist for Obama here. Even his grandmother, on world news, told of the day he was born…in Kenya.
The facts remain the same and your contesting them doesn’t change anything it just makes you and the other protesters here look ignorant and foolish.
Obama made a laughing stock of the American People and their Constitution right in their faces and people like you cheer it on in your ignorance of it all. You should be ashamed of yourself but, you seem far to proud of yourself for that.
Was the document too difficult for you to follow along with? Have no idea of where to fact check the info? Clueless about who you are and who the government is? Always lose in court? Don’t know how to learn the law from it’s source? I thought so…sounds like you should become a beneficiary of TeamLaw at teamlaw.net.
Have a nice life, I know I will. Cheers!
What does any of that have to do with Quo Warranto?
It is YOU who is the arrogant crackpot with no knowledge. You are the one who started with the name calling and “know it all” appearance. It’s as if all your “knowledge” comes from your imagination and television. Democrat television that is.
There are letters from the framers thanking Vattel for the copy of his book which he sent to them and they used “extensively” for the drafting of the Constitution. National Archives.
All of your post is myth and fake news. 2 things not defined in the Constitution are the term Natural Born Citizen and money. Vattel’s book never said that. You’ve simply never read it. I can cite the definition right from it at ss 212 – “Citizens and natives”.
Nice try though. How much do you get paid for being an agent provocateur?
Go back and read my comment, I was referring to your statement that Vattel was used extensively to draft the Constitution.
It was Blackstone’s Commentaries that was used extensively.
And Roosevelt wrote about DeLong Jr. in one of his books – Fear God and Take Your Own Part
Stanley Ann Dunham was born November 19th, 1942 and turned 18 on November 29th, 1960.
She was living in Hawaii at the time. Hawaii is part of the United States. It became a state on August 21st, 1959.
You’re really bad at this.
Since when do you use the word “framers” when referring to a single person?
Vattel was consulted on the topic of international law. But the English Common Law is what is used for the language in the Constitution. The courts have repeatedly stated this.
I don’t have a blog. Never did.
Dr Conspiracy, you are the conspirator. You democraps always calling everyone else what you are. By the way, a dozen courts have not rejected “my opinion” which is the fact that a Natural Born Citizen is one born of parents who were born in that same nation.
Funny (meaning peculiar) that you started this website…
It does when the office was illegally acquired. It is the whole point of Quo Warranto.
Since when do you have to be a US citizen to have a US passport?
Because it was way after the fact.
Uhhh, like forever–a US Citizen or US National.
I’m pretty careful about what I say, and when I say a dozen courts have rejected your opinion, which I correctly understand, I’m not just blowing smoke.
Here are the cases:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/lawsuits/recent-court-rulings-on-presidential-eligibility/
By the way, I am just deleting your wisecrack and insulting comments. I don’t put up with trolls any more.
Orly Taitz filed a quo warranto petition against President Obama in 2010. Judge Royce Lamberth denied it. His decision included the following discussion on quo warranto:
https://casetext.com/case/taitz-v-obama
Well first thing I am not paid for point out that Birthers are full of nonsense. I do it out of my own wish to do good.
I have read de Vattel and Section 212 of his work. The Supreme Court tells us where to go find the meaning of terms not defined in the Constitution. It tells us to go to English common law. That’s why in the Wong Kim Ark case the Court used the English common law definition of “natural born subject” to determine who were natural born citizens in the United States before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The Court said that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause merely codified what had always been the law save the terrible Dred Scott v Sandford decision. The 14th Amendment and others made that case moot.